Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Industrialised Buildings Systems

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what approaches he has received from local authorities for financial assistance for remedial treatment or the replacement of houses and flats built by industrial and semi-industrialised systems; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Local authorities, in making bids for their HIP allocation, have included, along with other special local needs, provision for the remedial treatment or replacement of houses and flats built by industrialised and semi-industrialised systems. I have, in addition, received a number of ad hoc requests for special financial assistance.
The need for capital expenditure on repair or replacement is taken into account in determining HIP allocations. In addition, the new subsidy system introduced last year brings within its scope the cost of capitalised repairs and the cost of improvements to dwellings built within the last 30 years, as well as costs of redevelopment.

Mr. Dean: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his reply and for the letter that he courteously sent to me on this subject. Are Ministers aware of the dimension of the problem nationally? For instance, does the hon. Gentleman know that the necessary decision by the Leeds city council to demolish the Hunslet Grange flats in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) means that, because of the debt charges remaining, the Leeds housing revenue account will have to bear the cost of £1 million a year for the foreseeable future? It also means that every council house tenant in Leeds will have to pay 22p a week extra in rent for the next 40 years to offset the cost of this one block of flats. Does the Minister think that that is a fair burden to place on council tenants in Leeds? If not, what further proposals do the Government have in mind to deal with this alarming position?

Sir George Young: I am aware of the issues facing Leeds Members and hon. Members in other parts of the country. The Government are generally not willing to encourage the demolition of public assets. We hope that local authorities will view such a policy as one of last

resort. If they decide to pursue such a policy, they must assess the financial consequences. I cannot, as a general rule, justify providing Government financial support, which would have to come from other local authorities' new build programmes.

Mr. Durant: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said, but there is a problem with this special type of building in different parts of the country. The Government should examine this as a unique problem which arose from a policy advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House, by architects and by people in the construction industry. This peculiar problem requires special attention.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to point out that previous Governments have encouraged the use of industrialised systems to increase the output of the house building industry, but it does not follow that the Government must be responsible for defects in design or in construction which have now emerged. The need for capital expenditure for dealing with such problems is taken into account in determining HIP allocations.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one more Back Bencher from either side of the House on this question before I call a Front Bench Member. Then we shall have to move more quickly.

Mr. Woolmer: Does the Minister realise that his remarks will appear appallingly complacent and heartless to the thousands of tenants who have suffered in these dwellings for many years? Will he reconsider the position of the Leeds city council, which has a housing waiting list of 22,000 and is building only 400 new dwellings a year? Will he at least agree to meet representatives of the Leeds city council and Leeds Members of Parliament to discuss what is a genuinely serious matter for many thousands of tenants?

Sir George Young: I am always prepared to see Members of Parliament who wish to discuss constituency issues.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's first point, when it comes to giving help for this type of problem the policy being pursued by this Administration is the same as that followed by the Labour Administration.

Mr. John Page: Is my hon. Friend changing standards and keeping his eye more firmly on the production of industrialised and semi-industrialised systems?

Sir George Young: Yes. In conjunction with the local authority associations, a defects prevention unit at the Building Research Establishment has been set up to advise on design and site practices and to assist in the prevention of building defects. If resources were switched to tackling the specific problem mentioned, they would have to come from somewhere else in the building programme.

Mr. Kaufman: As the Secretary of State is in the Chamber, may I ask him to accept that it is not good enough to fob off on to a junior Minister a major problem affecting many thousands of people in most of our large cities? Does he agree that we are talking about a major national issue? Will the Secretary of State take the initiative on what his hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) said was the responsibility of


successive Governments and call a conference of the leaders of the local authorities involved to discuss these grave issues?

Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard the request. I am sure that he will respond to it in due course.

Construction Industry

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest forecast of the level of activity for the construction industry in the financial year 1982–83.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): The Government do not make forecasts of construction industry output, but it is encouraging that the value of total orders for new construction increased by 5 per cent. in real terms last year, that commercial new orders were at their highest level since 1973 and that private sector house building starts, public sector house building starts and home improvement grants have all risen sharply in recent months.

Mr. Morris: Is that not good news and a reflection of the Budget provisions? In the coming months will my hon. Friend liaise closely with the House-Builders Federation and those involved in restoring sewers in inner city areas to ensure that that programme goes forward at an ever-increasing rate?

Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that we keep in close touch with the House-Builders Federation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services keeps in touch with the water industry. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. The revival of private sector house building over a substantial period is a further indication of the way in which the Government's economic policies are beginning to pay off.

Mrs. Renée Short: Contrary to the Minister's rose-tinted view, is he aware that in many areas local authority house building is virtually at a standstill? What remit has he given to the Building Research Establishment to produce good housing design to help local authorities?

Mr. Stanley: The basic responsibility for housing design should be with the local authorities. They can draw on the specialist housing design skills available in the private sector. It is encouraging that private sector house builders have produced a range of specialist designs for single people. I am glad to say that in the first quarter of 1982 public sector house building starts were 40 per cent. up on the previous quarter and 67 per cent. up on a year ago.

Waste and Vacant Land

Mr. Heddle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of publicly owned waste and vacant land shown in the land registers so far published.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The 350 registers now published contain details of 9,300 sites covering 83,500 acres of unused and underused public land. About 1,000 acres have already been removed from the registers because the land has been disposed of.

Mr. Heddle: Is it not a national scandal that so much land is lying idle, particularly in the conurbations of London, Birmingham and Manchester? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the councils which own the land and have neglected it for years should sell it post-haste and reinvest the proceeds in improving houses and building new houses when local circumstances demand such action?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. The new freedoms for capital expenditure given to local government mean that if local authorities sell such land they can use the money for any capital project. The issue is wider than that, because some of the land to which I have referred is owned by statutory undertakings and nationalised industries.

Mr. Eastham: Is it not time that Conservative Members substantiated some of their erroneous statements about surplus land and ownership? Is the Secretary of State aware that investigations often confirm that such land is privately owned and has nothing to do with local authorities?

Mr. Heseltine: We have investigated and proved beyond peradventure that large areas of land are owned by the public sector and could be disposed of to create a substantial pay-off.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: How does my right hon. Friend intend to ensure that the land is used? Does the existence of the land allow him to revise his estimate of the number of green field sites that he requires for future housing development?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend refers to an important subject. He will be aware that the acreage of green fields now being taken for development is substantially down on what it was a few years ago. I am determined to pursue a whole range of initiatives to speed up the release of land on the land registers. I should be grateful for any help from right hon. and hon. Members in alerting local authorities to the opportunities and the potential.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is not the real national scandal that hundreds of thousands of people are waiting to be housed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in places such as Leicester the problem is not that there is no land, but that builders, mainly private builders, cannot sell the houses that they have built because unemployed people cannot afford to buy them?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have been in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced substantial increases in housing starts. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman welcomes that as much as I do.

Ordnance Survey

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now in a position to make a statement on the future of the Ordnance Survey.

Mr. Heseltine: No. I am still considering my proposals and will make a statement as soon as I can.

Mr. Bennett: I congratulate the Secretary of State on that consistent reply and on his incisive decision making. He has been telling the House the same thing since before the Christmas Recess. Is it not high time that he put


forward proposals so that those who work for the Ordnance Survey do not have such continuing uncertainty? Does he agree that it is essential for good government to have good maps for planning and defence as well as for leisure and recreation?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for praising my consistency. The fears expressed do most to undermine the confidence of the staff. I do not wish to contribute to that situation. My plans for the Ordnance Survey will enable it to build on its success.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the continuing uncertainty is causing anxiety to employees of the Ordnance Survey, many of whom live in my constituency? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that his statement will be not in answer to a written question on a Friday afternoon, but in the House so that we can ask him questions about it?

Mr. Heseltine: I am not unsympathetic to that request. The Minister responsible has seen the staff side and offered to have further meetings. Depending on the scale of any announcement, I shall discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the precise form in which I should make my views known to Parliament.

Mr. Ancram: During my right hon. Friend's continuing deliberations will he bear in mind the legitimate fears and interests of the private map-making firms, such as Bartholomews in my constituency? Will he ensure that any decision does not undermine their position by creating competition which is either unfair or subsidised?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already seen the representatives of the private map-makers to see how we can draw together the respective strengths of the private and public sectors.

Dr. David Clark: If the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to make an announcement, can he at least say whether any of the bodies that he has consulted over the Ordnance Survey's change of status are in favour of the change? Has he any proposals to establish an advisory panel, as suggested by the Serpell report?

Mr. Heseltine: When I make my statement I shall let the House know the results of the consultation process. I am considering setting up an advisory body. It is important to consider the matter carefully and to get the decision right. There is no need for fear or apprehension about what I am trying to achieve. I am trying to build on the Ordnance Survey's success.

Planning Procedures

Mr. Stevens: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with progress in the liberalisation of planning procedures within the major towns and cities.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): There has been welcome progress in speeding up planning decisions but more could still be done. In several towns enterprise zones have been established where there is broad freedom from control, and urban development corporations have been set up to promote development in the London and Merseyside

Docklands. More generally we are seeking to ensure that permissions for development are not unreasonably withheld, particularly where it will bring jobs and benefit to the local economy.

Mr. Stevens: I think that we all recognise the work that the Government have done in trying to reduce red tape. They have also reduced the staff of the Department. What can my hon. Friend do to reduce the extent of bureaucracy elsewhere? Is he aware that there are 400 architects in Manchester and 350 planners in Birmingham? Can we do anything to reduce those numbers?

Mr. Winnick: Sack the lot.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) will be aware that there are sufficient pressures on local authorities to reduce costs and to cause them to examine all posts. We intend to ensure that many more local authorities come within the eight weeks' advice period that we offer for planning applications as set out in the development control programme.

Mr. Pitt: Is the Minister aware that the Financial Times last Thursday reported that his right hon. Friend intends to introduce a special Bill to enable normal planning procedures for the European Ferries site at Vauxhall to be circumvented so that work can begin more quickly?

Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend announced last evening that he intends to lay an order before the House for that purpose.

Mr. Eastham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Manchester city council architects provide a service for the 10 surrounding districts and carry out architectural works for the police, the health authorities and numerous other services that are not within the city?

Mr. Shaw: I trust that means that there will never be any delays in the processing of planning applications in Manchester.

Mr. Chapman: As a non-practising architect and planner, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees with the general proposition that it is not the liberalisation of planning procedures or the amending of town and country planning Acts that is necessary, but the application of those Acts and regulations by those in planning offices? Will he keep an eye on the quickening of the determination of such planning applications? Will he also bear in mind that there is great support for using special planning procedures in special cases to encourage development, such as that which is to take place on the Vauxhall site?

Mr. Shaw: I welcome my hon. Friend's comment in support of the special development order procedure. He will recognise that it is and must remain a rare procedure. I am delighted to report that the latest figures for the October to December quarter show that 70 per cent. of planning applications were decided in eight weeks, as against 64 per cent. in the previous quarter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is high time that I made another appeal for shorter supplementary questions.

London Dockland Development Commission

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what permissions he has given in the last month to development undertaken, or grants made by, the London Dockland Development Corporation.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Since the beginning of April my Department has approved four proposals by the London Dockland Development Corporation: first, the phased purchase from the London borough of Southwark of the Downtown estates for private sector redevelopment and rehabilitation; secondly, the letting of an annual contract for site investigations in the urban development area; thirdly, the payment of a rent grant under the Inner Urban Area Act to a roofing firm in Wapping; and, fourthly, a reconstruction of Thames Road, Silvertown.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that he makes other requirements on less spectacular expenditures? Will he examine these and ensure that only those that are likely to produce local disagreement are referred to him, not matters that should be within the remit of the dockland joint committee, as it was, or the LDDC as it now is?

Mr. Shaw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's comment to relate to the extent to which my Department has control over capital expenditure and revenue spending within the LDDC. It is our intention to ensure that public money is spent effectively. That is the critical examination that I am sure he wishes to apply.

Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many Londoners who have applied to purchase housing in the London Dockland Development Corporation area have been turned down because they do not live within the area? Does he agree that that shows that there is a large and untapped demand for housing in London that is not being met by local authorities?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is correct. Our first intention, and that of the corporation, was to provide housing for those who live within the area. It is important to note that by 10 May, 270 homes on the Beckton housing development had been sold, 119 of them to Newham council tenants.

Development Plans (Appeals)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria an inspector is required to follow when hearing an appeal against a council decision based upon a development plan determined by that council.

Mr. Giles Shaw: In determining an appeal under section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 an inspector is required by section 29 to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material to the application, and to any other material considerations. When a local plan has been adopted by the planning authority it becomes part of the development plan for that area and an inspector must therefore have regard to the relevant policies and proposals in that plan.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that where a council has adopted a reasoned development plan to restrict certain activities to a particular area—for example, Morecambe's decision to restrict amusement arcades to one area of the town—it is understandably

frustrated when an inspector grants an appeal that is inconsistent with the reasoned development plan, unless he gives reasons to show that the plan was unreasonable in the first place? Will my hon. Friend reconsider this matter to ascertain whether the criteria need strengthening to take that into account?

Mr. Shaw: I am prepared generally to consider the issue that my hon. Friend raises. He was right to raise it in respect of an individual matter. When a local plan is prepared and published, in most instances it will have priority over, for example, a county structure plan if that is also prepared and published.

Mr. McNamara: What is the delay within the Department in coming to a decision on the applications that are sent to it? When can the Humberside county council expect replies from the Department on four or five applications that it has been sitting on for varying periods of up to one year?

Mr. Shaw: It follows that any matter requiring adjudication on appeal is extremely complex and goes outside the normal run of planning appeals. Therefore, it is likely that the time taken by the Department will be that much longer. The average time is about 47 weeks as opposed to 17 weeks for determining appeals through inspectors by the written representation method.

Mr. Durant: Will my hon. Friend consider what steps he can take to persuade councils to take more decisions on planning applications and not always pass them on to public inquiries so that they may get rid of the responsibility to take decisions?

Mr. Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is essential that local authorities recognise that the changes made from the 1980 Act onwards mean that they have more power to determine their own planning decisions within the eight-week period. I hope that they will continue to operate this system. My hon. Friend knows that we are publishing tables showing the performance of authorities in determining planning applications.

City Councils (Staffing)

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the percentage changes in staffing of city councils in principal conurbations in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of local authority staff at the latest available date compared with May 1979.

Mr. Heseltine: Information on the percentage change in staffing in individual local authorities in England during the 12 months to December 1981 is included in the most recent joint manpower watch press release, copies of which are available in the Library. Overall, the metropolitan distric councils reduced their staffing by about 2 per cent. in the year. This remains an inadequate rate of reduction if the Government's expenditure targets are to be met. The total number of local authority staff in England at December 1981 was 1,890,770 full-time equivalents. Taking account of seasonal factors this represents a decrease of 80,145 or 4·1 per cent. since June 1979.

Mr. Steen: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Liverpool city council employs 59·8 staff per thousand head of the population, which is a far greater number than any other district council on Merseyside? Wirral, for example, employs 43·7 per thousand and Sefton only 39·8. Does he agree that until Liverpool city council reduces its staff and cuts commercial and domestic rates, there cannot be an economic upturn for the area?

Mr. McNamara: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about Toxteth?

Mr. Heseltine: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's suggestion that high staffing levels and consequently high rate bills seriously affect the commercial viability and attractiveness of an area. Liverpool's staff ratio per thousand head of population is high. Significantly, it is exceeded only by Manchester.

Mr. Iain Mills: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there will be burning resentment from many people in the private sector at his answer, which shows that councils have not reduced staff in line with what has had to happen in business and commerce? Will he take action to reduce councils' overall costs so that they reduce their staff, particularly in my constituency in the West Midlands county area?

Mr. Heseltine: I have repeatedly asked local authorities to make reductions. There has been a wide spread of performance. By and large, Conservative authorities have made substantial attempts to meet our targets and Labour authorities have not. Local electors have the ability to make judgments on that performance.

Mr. Newens: What are the advantages of reducing staff numbers if those people merely join the unemployed queues and have to be supported from public funds for doing nothing? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he is to reduce the number of staff, others in the Government must take steps to reflate the economy to give those people jobs elsewhere? Further, does he recognise that many of the people being dismissed are performing a vital public service which will be gravely missed?

Mr. Heseltine: There is little compulsory redundancy in local government to secure the staff cuts. By and large, it is a question of not replacing those who resign of their own free will. The public would find it difficult to distinguish between the quality of service of councils that have made the cuts and of those that have not.

Shellfish Waters

Sir Julian Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the extent to which the European Community directive on the quality required of shellfish waters is being complied with in European Economic Community countries.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The implementation of the directive in other member States is not a matter for my right hon. Friend. In the United Kingdom we have designated 27 shellfish areas under the directive. The directive is concerned only with the quality of waters, both estuarial and coastal, and to that end seeks to ensure that designated waters provide a suitable habitat for shellfish. It is not a public health measure and sets standards that are not relevant to those that would be needed for the protection of consumers.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: Does my hon. Friend believe that the directive is really necessary? Can he allay the feats of fishermen in non-designated areas that the directive is working against them?

Mr. Shaw: I can give that assurance. The directive does not bear on the marketing of shellfish. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I are aware of discrimination against the sale of shellfish from non-designated areas. We are satisfied that the shellfish can continue to be marketed, provided that they meet the local health authority requirements.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the directive made any difference to the possibility of designating marine nature reserves? Is that why the Government have failed to designate any, even though 12 months have passed since we fully debated the matter on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill?

Mr. Shaw: The directive has made no difference to the policy.

London Local Government

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to change the structure and responsibilities of local government in London.

Mr. Heseltine: No.

Mr. Dubs: I am grateful for the assurance. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's constant criticism of ILEA, London Transport and the GLC smack of a political vendetta? Will he give a further assurance that there will be no change to the structure and functioning of local government in London except as part of a national review of the metropolitan tier of local government?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman may have missed an important point. The deluge of criticism of the GLC and ILEA results from their profligate expenditure and rating policies. It is not orchestrated by the Government. We do not need to contribute to something that is happening under its own momentum.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if London Transport is taken away from the GLC—and the sooner the better—the GLC will fulfil no useful function? Does he agree that it is no more than a party political racket at the expense of London ratepayers?

Mr. Heseltine: The party in control of the GLC is an eloquent testimony to my hon. Friend's wisdom.

Mr. Graham: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that any defects in the structure or function of London local government pale into insignificance when we consider the problems created by the Government meddling in London finance and rate support? Will he repeat his assurance that he will not respond to politically motivated demands for the abolition of the GLC and consider the future of London local government only as part of a national review?

Mr. Heseltine: I would not respond to a politically motivated demand, but a rational and well-presented case would be a different matter.

Mr. Jessel: As Greater London housing has gone to the boroughs, the ambulance service to the NHS and sewerage


to the Thames water authority, as the intention seems to be to put London Transport under a different authority and as the Home Secretary could easily run the fire brigade, why should the GLC continue? Is it not nonsense to talk of a political vendetta when, since its beginning in 1964, the GLC has spent an equal time under the control of both parties?

Mr. Heseltine: I am constantly searching for coherent answers to my hon. Friend's questions.

Rating Reform

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish a White Paper on rate reform.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received from the general public on the rating system since the publication of the Green Paper on rating reform.

Mr. Heseltine: I have received more than 1,100 responses to the Green Paper, including 658 from members of the public. These are now being analysed by my Department. When the analysis has been completed, I shall be making proposals to my colleagues. I can assure my hon. Friends that I am committed to achieving real reform as quickly as possible.

Mr. Atkinson: Notwithstanding the longer term nature of some of the options in the Green Paper, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will be able to bring forward legislation in the next Session of Parliament to relieve the burden on hard-pressed ratepayers, particularly those on pensions and fixed incomes?

Mr. Heseltine: I know how important the issue is to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We are considering the matter, and I cannot anticipate the Government's findings.

Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the alarm among ratepayer organisations that the Government may be considering a poll tax on top of rates, so that there will be two taxes instead of one? May we have his assurance that, if he cannot achieve the comprehensive reform that many of us wish for, he will do nothing at all?

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot give an assurance that I shall do nothing at all, but that is very different from stating what I shall do. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). While I am making proposals and submitting summaries to my Cabinet colleagues, it would be wrong to anticipate their judgment.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in any rating reform he will not include spending targets, spending penalties and exemptions from penalties, since his present system of unlawful targets, penalties and exemptions has resulted in local authorities spending £1·4 billion more than he wishes to be spent? Will he also give an assurance that there will be no midyear holdback to deal with the £1·4 billion overspend?

Mr. Heseltine: Under our regime, for the first time for 30 years, local authority current expenditure has been brought under persistent control. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seaks.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that rate reform is extremely urgent in areas of high unemployment like Humberside, where the Labour council has in the past year increased county rates by 61 per cent., thus making it extremely difficult to attract industry to the area?

Mr. Heseltine: I sympathise very much with my hon. Friend. There is no automatic association between high levels of unemployment and high levels of rates. The almost automatic relationship is between Labour control and high levels of rates.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread support for changes in the rating system? Will he confirm that he is holding consultations with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in the course of his review of the rating system following the Green Paper?

Mr. Heseltine: I can confirm that there is widespread support for reform of the rating system. There is an equally widespread difference of view over what the reform should be. I shall keep closely in touch with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable support for maintaining the rating system for non-metropolitan district authorities and introducing a local income tax for county councils?

Mr. Heseltine: It is perfectly correct, as my hon. Friend puts it, that there is a measure of support—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Not here.

Mr. Heseltine: —but it is obviously not wholly universal.

Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 3p in the pound of the increase in rates in Humberside is due directly to cuts made by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in higher education in Humberside? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of policies followed by his right hon. Friend, more money is being paid in support of students reading sociology than is being paid for students reading such subjects as engineering and applied science? Would it not be a good idea if the right hon. Gentleman, before he starts looking at rates, had a word with his right hon. Friends about the types of cuts that they are making in things that are essential for the prosperity and employment of people in Humberside?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not have detailed knowledge of the educational priorities of the Humberside authority. I am, however, aware that it was not a consequence of the ongoing education provision but a consequence of the change of political control that precipitated the very large rate increase in Humberside.

Urban Renewal (Private Investment)

Sir William Elliott: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to increase the levels of private investment in urban renewal by extending some of the advantages offered within the enterprise zones to inner city areas.

Mr. Giles Shaw: We are watching closely to see how effective the enterprise zone advantages prove to be. The


results so far are encouraging but it is too soon for a definitive assessment. We shall not consider extending the advantages until that is available. In the meantime, we have taken a number of other initiatives to promote investment in the inner city, including my right hon. Friend's recent announcement of the urban development grant.

Sir William Elliott: Is my hon. Friend aware that the success so far of the enterprise zones, especially in North-East England, is very much appreciated? Will he nevertheless realise that existing firms in cities are fearful of the enormous trading advantage of firms coming into the zones? Will he do his best, in the operation of Government policy, to ensure that firms that are established and that have, through their enterprise, provided much employment, do not suffer unduly.

Mr. Shaw: I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxiety that the existence of enterprise zones, because of their advantages, may affect existing enterprises located outside them. I think my hon. Friend will agree that the enterprise zones are essentially catalysts, around which increasing economic activity can be provided, and that they are located in areas where such a catalyst should not be detrimental to generating economic activity. In fact, the reverse is the case.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Minister enlighten the House about how many existing businesses just outside the Tyneside enterprise zone have applied to move into the enterprise zone? Will he resist the blandishments of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) and instead increase the money available for inner city partnership schemes?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a number of initiatives announced by my right hon. Friend, including the urban development grant, will result in £70 million being available in 1983–84. I cannot answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall write to him on the matter.

Public Bodies (Land Sales)

Mr. Race: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to ensure that all publicly owned undertakings and companies are instructed to offer surplus land to local housing authorities before selling such land on the open market.

Mr. Giles Shaw: No, Sir. This would delay disposals as well as being an unreasonable limitation on the bodies concerned.

Mr. Race: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that many housing authorities find difficulty building the number of houses that they would wish to build because of a serious shortage of land, especially in inner city areas? Is he aware that they cannot use the capital sums produced by council house sales because of that? Will the Minister allow them to compete on equal terms with other authorities that want to buy land so that they are not caught by the housing cost yardstick operated by his Department, which prevents many local authorities from building the houses that they need?

Mr. Shaw: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in relation to the land register system, the registers for the first 35 districts showed that about 21,000 acres were

available, of which about one half was regarded as being capable of being developed. A great deal of housing land can be made available within local authority areas for development if the authorities are so minded. That is the objective of my right hon. Friend's initiative.

Mr. Major: Would it not be absurd for public undertakings to be compelled to sell vacant land to local authorities which themselves have undeveloped vacant land? Is it not more acceptable that the land should be sold to the private sector, where one hopes it would be speedily developed for construction purposes?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The important point about the land register system and the requirement for local authorities to appraise their land holdings is to bring land into more beneficial use. The more that local authorities recognise that they will not only obtain beneficial use from it but increased rateable value, the better.

World Cup

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 29 April, Official Report, c. 331, if he has since reviewed the question of participation by Scotland, England and Northern Ireland in the World Cup.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I keep the position under constant review.

Mr. Dalyell: At least in relation to Scotland, where most of us in the industrial belt have a rather different perception of the whole Falklands issue than the Southern English, will the Government make an effort to ascertain the views of the Scots on the task force before pressurising the SFA to withdraw from the World Cup?

Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot give any assurances or guarantees on that topic or that approach. At this stage the Government see no objection to the three British teams taking part as planned in the World Cup finals next month. I have said previously, both inside and outside the House, that many millions of people would find it odd if we as the non-aggressor nation, were not taking part in the World Cup finals.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend recall that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and I raised this question a month ago in the House? Since then, have any of the home football associations or any of the countries that have supported us in the United Nations raised through FIFA the possibility of the Argentines being thrown out of the World Cup? They are the aggressor, not us. We should be going and they should not.

Mr. Macfarlane: I understand what my hon. Friend says. A dialogue obviously takes place between representatives of FIFA. I have no specific knowledge of any detailed dialogue involving our senior vice-president, Mr. Harry Cavan, of the Northern Ireland Football Association, or precisely what he has said. The Brazilian president of FIFA has made it clear that Argentina will not be excluded from the World Cup.

Mr. Denis Howell: As the news from the Falklands grows more ominous by the hour, can the Minister say


whether his advice will still hold, what discussions he has had with the three football associations and in what circumstances the Government might think it right to change that advice? Will he say what advice he has given the football associations about representations to FIFA along the lines discussed in the House three weeks ago?

Mr. Macfarlane: I think that all hon. Members will share my view that, at the moment, this is a matter that has to be held under constant review and that ultimately it is a matter very much for the football authorities. I am reviewing the matter day by day. I cannot answer hypothetical questions about what might happen over the next seven to 10 days—I have no means of knowing—except to say that the British Government see no objection at the moment to the British teams going to the World Cup finals next month. I hope that the competition can continue under normal circumstances.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members, and many people in the country, will support his view that we should put no pressure on the football associations to withdraw as we are the innocent parties in this dispute? Does he agree that it is right to go to Spain and to take part in the competition, but that if any British team has to face the Argentine team we should withdraw from the competition and put the onus on FIFA to expel Argentina, if it thinks this is absolutely necessary?

Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend raises many hypothetical points. I wish to make it clear to the House that I have put no pressure on the three British football associations. The matter is under constant review.

Planning Applications

Mr. Major: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those local authorities which decide on average less than 50 per cent. of their planning applications within eight weeks.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Yes, Sir. I am arranging for the latest information to be circulated in the Official Report.

Mr. Major: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his positive response. Does he agree that the swift determination of planning applications is of immense importance to industry, commerce and individuals? What plans does he have further to hasten the response to such applications by those authorities that are still extremely slow?

Mr. Shaw: I share my hon. Friend's view that this is an important aspect of development. There has already been a welcome speeding up of decisions. From October to December 1981, planning authorities decided 70 per cent. of all applications within eight weeks compared with 62 per cent. in a previous quarter. However, I propose to make a direct approach to those authorities whose performance seems seriously inadequate.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: In his desire to speed up planning decisions, will the Minister ensure that the rights of individuals who object to planning decisions are not jeopardised?

Mr. Shaw: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that time is money in the building industry and that the long delays in

planning inquiries that are now taking place cause unnecessary expense? I refer especially to the inquiry on the western esplanade scheme in Southampton, which is tying up many millions of pounds and is preventing more than 3,000 people from obtaining employment on the site?

Mr. Shaw: I am aware of my hon. Friend's assiduous inquiries about the future of that scheme. It is a matter that my Department must examine. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the average time for determination of planning appeals through the written representation method is now 17 weeks as opposed to 21 weeks a few quarters ago.

Following is the information:


Planning authorities in England deciding less than 50 per cent, of their planning applications within eight weeks in the quarter ending 31 December 1981



Total Applications Decided
Per cent. Decided in 8 Weeks


Southwark
218
49·5


Swale
236
49·2


Doncaster
377
48·8


Havering
484
48·6


Richmond-upon-Thames
244
48·4


City of London
141
48·2


Barnet
407
47·9


Birmingham
926
47·1


Waltham Forest
248
46·8


Wolverhampton
245
46·5


Hinckley and Bosworth
221
46·2


Dudley
535
460


Reading
284
45·8


Chiltern
339
44·8


Hertsmere
158
43·7


Maidstone
245
43·7


Enfield
377
43·5


Brighton
256
43·4


Brent
373
43·4


Guildford
270
42·6


East Hertfordshire
359
42·3


Sutton
232
40·9


Mendip
342
40·1


West Lancashire
255
39·6


Bridgnorth
111
37·8


Hillingdon
300
37·0


Knowsley
67
34·3


Windsor and Maidenhead
386
33·7


Peak District National Park
138
33·3


Kingston-upon-Thames
260
21·9


Bromley
744
21·4


Hackney
154
13·6


Woking
258
11·6

Note: Returns are not yet available for this quarter for 26 authorities.

These are:


Calderdale
Kennet


Carrick
Lake District National Park


Charnwood
Lancaster


Chester-le-Street
Lewes


Coventry
Lichfield


Croydon
Liverpool


Ealing
Merton


Rylde
Pendle


Hereford
Penwith


Hounslow
Stoke-on-Trent


Hove
Torridge


Hyndburn
Wandsworth


Isles of Scilly
Wyre

The Department is continuing to press these authorities for these returns.

New Towns (Housing Repairs)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to expedite the publication of the report on repairs to houses in new towns which was begun by the National Building Agency.

Mr. Stanley: The report to which the hon. Member refers is not due to be received, under the terms of the contract, until the end of this month. My latest information, however, is that this timetable will be adhered to.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister recall the many occasions on which I have raised with him the problems of housing in Peterlee new town, in my constituency? Must I remind him yet again of the desperate position of hundreds of my constituents? Recently, it has even been necessary to demolish houses in a new town. Will he stop prevaricating and make money available immediately instead of waiting for reports, the contents of which he well knows anyway?

Mr. Stanley: There is no question of prevarication, as I told the hon. Gentleman when he last raised the matter at Question Time. The report is due at the end of May and we have not yet reached that stage. As to the existing position, in making the HIP allocations we have borne in mind the prolems to which he refers. We have made it clear that if authorities use their HIP allocations to make the repairs to which he refers, that is without prejudice to their entitlemment or to any later decision on grant.

Mr. Dover: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he has taken the necessary precautions to ensure that National Building Agency records are fully available in case such problems occur in the next few years?

Mr. Stanley: If there is anything to be learnt from the records of the National Building Agency, I see no difficulty in their being made available, subject to any copyright provisions.

Mr. Graham: Will the Minister confirm and repeat his previous assurance that once the report has been received and before he comes to any conclusion, he will ask for the views of the associations and the councils, so that they will have the opportunity not only to read the report but to examine its findings? Will he also bear in mind that, when he finally determines the percentage to be given towards the cost for councils to save the vast housing stock that is under threat, the percentage of grant must be substantial?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot anticipate our conclusion on the question of percentages, but we have already made it clear that we shall publish the report in conjunction with the Government's conclusions.

Ordnance Survey

Mr. Dover: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to involve the private sector in the activities currently undertaken by the Ordnance Survey.

Mr. Heseltine: In my statement to the House on 22 July 1981 I encouraged the Ordnance Survey to engage in joint ventures with the private sector for the profitable use of the Ordnance Survey topographical archive. This policy is being actively pursued. Several joint venture publications have appeared and more will follow.
The Ordnance Survey is also proposing to involve private sector survey firms in some of its basic survey and mapping activities. Invitations to tender for two pilot projects appeared last week. The results will be evaluated and, if successful, further survey and mapping projects will be included in plans for future years.

Mr. Dover: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that private enterprise firms are very unhappy about the slow progress in this area? They believe sincerely that they can carry out the work more quickly and more cheaply.

Mr. Heseltine: I take my hon. Friend's views seriously. I have made it clear to private sector firms that I am only too anxious to hold proper discussions with them. I was not aware that their feelings were as strong as my hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. Newens: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many people who have great knowledge of such matters consider that the steps that he has taken to involve the private sector will reduce the quality of the work that has been established over many years? In those circumstances, will he review what he is doing and ensure that we can maintain the long-established standards of the Ordnance Survey?

Mr. Heseltine: There is no question of reducing the standards. I believe that the combination of public and private sector expertise in this area will enhance both opportunities and standards.

Landscape Protection

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to legislate to protect the landscape in England and Wales more effectively.

Mr. Macfarlane: No, Sir. The provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and other countryside and planning legislation offer adequate safeguards for landscape conservation.

Mr. Hardy: As the pace of change is rather more ruinous than the Government appear to be ready to acknowledge, and as the Government seem to be acting on a complacent assumption, as revealed by their disgraceful blocking of the Hedgerows Bill, will the Minister agree at least to convene a meeting of the conservation bodies, especially the informed and responsible bodies, to discuss whether the changes proposed can be considered?

Mr. Macfarlane: Progress is best achieved through co-operation with the farming community, including the use of management agreements, as provided for in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The Countryside Commission is currently engaged in several initiatives to promote hat approach. We must give it a chance to succeed, but knowing the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed to me, I shall discuss the matter with the chairman of the Countryside Commission.

Mr. Murphy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in all planning applications that are referred to the Department of the Environment the importance of preserving our natural heritage is always given high priority?

Mr. Macfarlane: I give that assurance. It is always uppermost in my right hon. Friend's mind.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that the cooperation for which he has asked is not occurring between


the farmers and the Nature Conservancy Council in the case of West Sedgemoor, where 40 to 50 acres of land have been drained, resulting in a large threat to wildlife, especially otters? As the Nature Conservancy Council will not act and there is no sign of a declaration of a site of special scientific interest, will the Minister involve himself in the matter, because it is of great importance to the nation?

Mr. Macfarlane: I give that undertaking to the House. I and my ministerial colleagues in other Departments are well aware of the problem and we are in touch with the interested parties.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is deep anxiety about this subject and that Government bodies such as the Nature Conservancy Council do not always represent the best interests of our natural heritage? I refer to the problems at Alderley Edge and a commercial decision to try to open the old copper mines, which will be a great disadvantage environmentally to all of that beautiful area of Cheshire.

Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend has drawn the matter to my attention. Perhaps he will give me further details and I shall examine it.

Council House Sales

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities are proceeding with the sale of council houses at a satisfactory rate.

Mr. Stanley: Most authorities now appear to be making satisfactory progress, but a number have been told

in recent weeks that my right hon. Friend expects them to accelerate their rate of completion substantially. All complaints of delay from individual tenants are being pursued with the authorities concerned.

Mr. Marlow: As this policy has been a tremendous boon to many people who otherwise would not have the opportunity of owning their houses, and as it has improved the environment in which people live in many parts of our cities and elsewhere, will my hon. Friend think of further ideas for accelerating this valuable and worthwhile scheme?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is right. It is significant, and of great benefit, that until the end of last year about a quarter of a million council dwellings had been moved into owner occupation during the lifetime of the Government. That is a social advance of great significance and we hope to see that advance accelerated.

Mr. Bidwell: Is the hon. Gentleman's Department monitoring council house sales to the extent of ascertaining how many money borrowers have fallen down on their repayments and cannot keep up mortgage payments? The economic situation has led those people astray.

Mr. Stanley: Many hundreds of thousands of tenants have successfully purchased their homes over the years and I am not aware of any statistical basis for suggesting that there is a greater number of defaulters among purchasers from local authorities as opposed to the majority of owner occupiers.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business for tomorrow will now be a debate on the Falkland Islands, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The business originally set down for that day will be taken on another occasion.

Mr. John Stokes: rose—

Mr. Michael Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for arranging a debate. I presume that the debate will open with a statement by the Government giving the fullest possible account, from the Government's point of view, of the stage that has been reached in the peace discussions and the attempts to secure a peaceful settlement. Will the debate start with a description of the present stage of such discussions?

Mr. Biffen: That is the intention.

Mr. Stokes: rose—

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call both hon. Members and then move to the second statement.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the whole of the battle of El Alamein during the last war the House was not once recalled, nor was there a single statement? Can my right hon. Friend say what good he thinks tomorrow's debate will do and what good the fifth debate did last week?

Mr. Biffen: I do not share my hon. Friend's view about the constructive role that the House is able to play in this matter. There, I fear, the matter must rest.

Mr. Winnick: As the country is fortunately not involved in a world war—as implied by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes)—will the Leader of the House assure us that, before any military invasion of the Falkland Islands, the House will be informed and a debate will take place?

Mr. Biffen: That is precisely the kind of point that should be made in tomorrow's debate.

Agriculture Council

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): Together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State I attended a meeting of the Agriculture Council which met in Brussels on 17 and 18 May.
Since January, at eight meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers we have been negotiating this year's price-fixing arrangements. During these meetings member States had by negotiation obtained unanimity on many of the questions involved. Britain had retained specific reserves on a number of agricultural issues and a general reserve on the entire package. The purpose of the general reserve was to ensure that the position adopted at last November's European Council meeting in London by all member States in considering the 30 May mandate, that the budget and agricultural matters should be dealt with in parallel, should be complied with.
We therefore expected that at the meeting this week we would continue to negotiate on those remaining questions where unanimity had not been obtained. If by the time of the completion of our meeting there was no agreement upon the budget measures we would retain our general reserve.
Together with Denmark and Greece we strongly protested when the Presidency, encouraged by the Commission, announced that for the first time since 1966 the principle of obtaining unanimity where a very important national interest had been invoked was to be violated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—and that a decision was to be taken in accordance with the treaty arrangements for majority voting.
I made a firm statement to the Council contesting the procedure and declaring that the Council had violated an accepted convention under which all previous price-fixings had been adopted. I stated that the Government considered that, as important national interests were involved, in accordance with the established practice of the Community, discussions should have continued in this Council until a unanimous agreement had been reached. I pointed out that the decisions that were being taken would place a further financial burden on the United Kingdom, that there was clearly a direct and organic link between the price-fixing decision and the budget negotiations and that this link had been recognised by all member States in their agreement that the three chapters of the 30 May mandate should proceed in parallel. I placed it on record that I considered that the conduct of the Presidency of the Commission and the member States which had joined in this procedure had created a very sad and damaging day in the Community's history—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and that the Council had quite unjustifiably chosen to depart from the established working practices based on the agreement reached in 1966.
A majority decision was, therefore, taken on all of the regulations in accordance with what had been negotiated and agreed by nine member States in the meetings prior to this week's Council. Under the treaty these regulations become Community law with effect from tomorrow.
Had the normal process of negotiating continued and had not the Presidency, the Commission and seven member States violated the normal traditions, we would


have endeavoured to obtain some further improvements in the clawback arrangements on lamb, and even larger reductions in the co-responsibility levy, whilst at the same time reducing the price increase for milk. We would also have sought lower increases in the prices of a number of cereals and in the prices of a range of Mediterranean products.
Many of the regulations were of course in accordance with the package that had emerged from the negotiations that had taken place in previous meetings of the Council. In those previous meetings the United Kingdom had achieved a number of important objectives to the benefit of consumers and producers, and these will now be implemented.
We successfully resisted pressures from the Commission and all other member States to revalue the green pound. We obtained a ½ per cent. reduction in the milk co-responsibility levy which will be worth around £10 million a year to United Kingdom producers. The Commission was made to withdraw its proposal for a progressive co-responsibility levy which would have been damaging to the interests of our industry. Improvements were made in the provision of aid for school milk. The Community subsidy was increased and this should lead to an increased up-take by local authorities.
We succeeded in obtaining an increase of two-thirds in the maximum beef premium payments and an increase in the Community contribution from the 25 per cent. negotiated by our predecessors to 40 per cent. We obtained a firm Commission declaration ensuring that the sale of wine distillates will not threaten the alcohol industry in this country. We resisted the Commission proposals for a large reduction in the United Kingdom butter subsidy, and the subsidy will continue at around 13p per pound.
The result of the total package that has now been agreed on farm support prices in the United Kingdom is an increase of 10·2 per cent. The effect of this on the retail price index over a full year will be ¼ per cent. and on the food price index over a full year 1¼ per cent. The consumer benefit of the beef premium scheme, the sheepmeat regime and the continuation of the butter subsidy will be worth some hundreds of millions of pounds, depending on the market situation.
The Commission estimates that the settlement increases the budgetary cost of the common agricultural policy by around 1,500 million ECUs or over £900 million in a full year. It also calculates that the increase is well within that of the Community's own resources. We estimate that the extra budgetary cost to the United Kingdom is about £120 million in a full year. This emphasises the importance of agreement on the adjustment of our budgetary contribution, which member States had previously agreed should be decided in parallel with the agricultural decisions.
Separately from the price-fixing, the Commission announced that a satisfactory solution had been reached to the problem of Dutch horticultural gas prices, which should be of benefit to United Kingdom horticulturists.
It is wrong that for the first time in 16 years a number of member States should have changed the rules of procedure to suit their immediate requirements and it must be noted that three of the four member States that have joined the Community strongly protested at the violation

of the normal procedures that took place yesterday; they had joined the Community in the knowledge that these were the procedures of the Community.
The Government will be urgently considering the implications of what was done yesterday, and what action they will take. I am sure that the House will wish to debate this matter further. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is arranging through the usual channels for a debate.

Mr. Norman Buchan: We face a serious and grave situation and we had a not too serious a statement in response to it. Clearly, there are implications that go well beyond the mere matter of agriculture price-fixing. There are many future implications for Britain's international role and its role in relation to the Common Market. We shall have a look at some of those.
May we have a little clarity? The Minister said that in previous meetings the United Kingdom had
achieved a number of important objectives to the benefit of consumers and producers"—
I have no doubts about the benefits to the consumers—
and these will now be implemented.
However, the right hon. Gentleman also said that the regulations agreed yesterday will
become Community law with effect from tomorrow.
What does that mean? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to implement only those matters that he has already agreed, or will he have to implement the entire burden of the decisions made yesterday? I understand that the Ministry has today issued instructions for the implementation of the regulations in accordance with Community law and I want from the Minister a denial that he has given such instructions or that his Ministry is proceeding to implement the matters on which he did not agree.
Quite apart from the international impact, there will be wide internal implications, not only for farmers but for consumers. We are extremely sceptical about the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. For example, the European Consumer Organisation estimates that the decisions will involve an additional cost of £1·50 a week for the average family with two children. Most estimates in reputable journals, including Agra Europe, suggest increased costs of between £1·20 and £1·50—and that is against the background of a compulsory wage ceiling for large sectors of our people of between 4 per cent. and 6 per cent.
There are major implications for the future. The common fisheries policy falls within the Minister's responsibility. The sands of time are running out and we have only a few more months in which to reach a settlement. Is the veto to be available for use from now on, or will our waters be open—up to the beaches—for every fisherman in Western Europe? What protection do we have for our fishing communities and our waters if the CFP is also to be decided by majority vote? It was clear yesterday and from the philosophy of some of the right hon. Gentleman's response that such an objective is in the minds of not only the Commission but many members of the Council of Ministers.
The total budget on which the right hon. Gentleman says that he has been raising his resistance is one of the problems, as the right hon. Gentleman told the Eurofanatics on the SDP and Liberal Benches who wanted to force a settlement even before we knew the total of the budget. What effect will yesterday's decisions have on the total budget and on the share that we shall have to pay for


the privilege of paying high taxes to bring about high prices? This is the first time in recorded history when what we have lost on the swings we are also losing on the roundabouts. Does the right hon. Gentleman still intend to resist on the budget?
What is the right solution? All that we are told is that the Government are considering the position seriously. May I suggest a solution? [Interruption.] One solution would be for the Minister to refuse to pay our share of the budget. Any money thus saved could be used for a proper national policy for the British agriculturist and the British consumer alike. That is the right solution. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will use the opportunity to direct British agriculture away from the distortions that the CAP has produced. If that should require legislation, we would assist.
There are two other matters of importance. [Interruption.] This is a desperately serious situation and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us who speaks for Britain in this situation. A majority of Conservative Members of the European Parliament voted to go along with majority votes in the Council. Sir Henry Plumb, the leader of the Conservative group, was one of the only two MEPs to vote a month ago not for a 10·2 per cent. increase, but for a 14 per cent. increase. The other was Mrs. Ewing of the SNP.
Further, the President of the Commission—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will verify this. Is it correct—

Sir Victor Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make it clear to the House, which appears to be under a misapprehension, that a statement is different from a private notice question, and the Opposition are entitled not only to ask questions but to pass remarks, commensurate with the length of the statement.

Mr. Buchan: Is it the case that Gaston Thorn, the President of the Commission, said that he was not interested in unanimity or unanimous decisions? Did not he play a major part in encouraging the Council of Ministers to come to their decision? I ask again, who rules—the Commission or the Ministers?
I said that there were deeper implications. One is that yesterday's events pose a major question about our continued membership of the Common Market. The Minister may recall that in his own White Paper, produced by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1971, we were assured—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can see that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is about to conclude. He ought to be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. Buchan: The White Paper on which we entered the Common Market—the conditions were referred to by the Minister yesterday—made it clear that there would be no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty
because it is established that decisions should be unanimous.
The White Paper produced by a Labour Government in 1975—[Interruption.]—asserted:
each member state is in a position to block agreement unless interests to which it attaches importance are met.
In other words—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there has been an announcement that there will be an opportunity to debate this whole matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West is coming to a conclusion.

Mr. Buchan: You are percipient, as always, Mr. Speaker. I am, indeed, corning to a conclusion and it is that one of the themes in next week's debate will be the statement made by the Minister yesterday that the conditions and understandings on which we entered the Common Market have been broken. The whole question of our continued relationship in this form will be at issue.

Mr. Walker: I shall look forward to debating the matter with the hon. Gentleman next week. As I made clear in my statement, the proposals were legally passed and become law throughout the Community tonight. I also made clear the aspects on which I would have endeavoured to continue negotiating. Of course, what happened yesterday prevented that process from taking place. All the things that we achieved in previous debates in the Council have been implemented immediately.
With regard to the effect on consumer prices, I want there to be no doubt whatever as to the accuracy of the figures. The method of calculating the figures is the same as that used when the previous Labour Government were in office, and the same people are doing the calculation. The calculation is not made on a political basis.
Recently, a quite inaccurate estimate was made in the Community, which proceeded as if the price increase applied to the 40 per cent. of goods imported from the tropics and elsewhere. A series of quite incorrect calculations were made. Recently, one of the consumer associations quoted those figures. When the association's representatives came to see me at the Ministry, at my invitation, I asked them to sit down and go through our method of calculation and to see whether they had any criticism of it. They had no criticism to make.
In a nutshell, the effect on consumer prices over a year will be rather less than the increase in food prices every month during the period of office of the previous Labour Government.
With regard to fishing, the future role of the veto is obviously a fundamental and basic question. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) rightly referred to the fact that, as shown by the White Papers, Britain joined the Community knowing the process that was involved. Obviously, the matter is now causing a major crisis within the Community. If the power of veto is to continue where national interests are involved—as, in my judgment, it must continue as part of the Community Process—it must in future continue in such a way that no one can at any time break that agreement. This is obviously a matter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be taking up at the next meeting, early next week, of the Foreign Ministers' Council.
With regard to the role of the Commission, over the whole period of the Luxembourg compromise since 1966 it has been no secret that the Commission has always been opposed to it and has been in favour of majority voting. The Commission did everything it could to encourage those who were using that device yesterday.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is timetabled business to follow. We have heard the


announcement of a debate on the matter raised by the statement. However, despite both those factors, I intend exceptionally, to allow half an hour for questions from each side of the House.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government accept that, in considering urgently the implications of what happened yesterday, it is certainly my view that the Luxembourg compromise must apply either to everybody or to nobody? There can be no question, as some other countries have suggested, that the Luxembourg compromise remains intact after what happened yesterday. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that, far from being a crowning achievement of the Community, the Luxembourg compromise—the right of veto—has in many ways been responsible for the loss of momentum and stultification since 1966? [Interruption.] It is by no means clear to me that it has operated in Britain's interest.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the essential difficulty was not the impact—subject to a little further negotiation—of the agricultural price increase itself, but the linkage with the absence of a budget settlement?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us, in advance of the debate which I hope will take place next week, that no long-term isolating decisions will be taken by the Government?

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Remarks have just been made in this House without a declaration of interest, when one should have been made.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is up to everybody to decide his own interest.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made a declaration of interest, in accordance with the rules of the House, that, subject to tax, I have received certain severence payments—[Interruption.]—certain annual payments. If hon. Members cannot accept that people can have a view—[Interruption.]—and put it forward in the interests of this country in these circumstances—[Interruption.]—this House has become a very much worse place than—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I warn the House that the continuance of noise will reduce the number of hon. Members who can be called during the time allotted.

Mr. Walker: With regard to the observation by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) that, if we are to have the Luxembourg compromise, it must apply to everybody or to nobody, there could be no Luxembourg compromise other than on the basis that the procedure is constantly obeyed by all member countries. Seven member countries destroyed the Luxembourg compromise yesterday. As to whether it should apply to everybody or to nobody, I have no doubt in my own mind that it must apply to everybody.
I reject the second view of the right hon. Gentleman. Where a major interest of a national Government is involved, I believe that it is wrong for a majority vote to impose something against that national interest.
The right hon. Gentleman campaigned vigorously for Britain to be part of the Community. In the course of that advocacy, he must have known that the White Papers on

the subject clearly stated that the Luxembourg compromise was part of the procedures of the Community. That is why it is significant that the three countries which strongly objected yesterday had all joined the Community and campaigned for doing so on the basis of the existence of the Luxembourg compromise.
I confirm that of course there was a linkage between the budget and the prices, but I must also confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that when the 10 member States agreed the mandate of 30 May, they agreed that the decisions should be taken in parallel, so it was not just a matter of Britain demanding the linkage; the whole of the Community had agreed that the linkage should take place. It is very wrong that that linkage has not taken place.

Sir Hugh Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Prime Minister to early-day motion 467?
[That this House views with the gravest concern the decision of the European Economic Community Council of Ministers to approve the farm price review by majority vote against the expressed wishes of Her Majesty's Government, an act which is in contravention of the established practice and conventions of the Community which were established prior to the entry of the United Kingdom and which enable member states to veto measures taken against their national interest; urges that action be taken to remedy this position; and pledges support to the Prime Minister in taking whatever measures she may consider necessary.]
May the action taken by the Prime Minister be powerful?
Will the Minister give a pledge to the House that the Government do not propose to go down the federal line which has been indicated by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins)?

Mr. Walker: The principle of the Luxembourg compromise is vital. Strangely enough, a document that is to be discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council next week, in the names of the Foreign Secretaries of Germany and Italy, contains their proposals that the Luxembourg compromise should become more enshrined within the Community. It is remarkable that those countries violated that principle yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is aware of the early-day motion in the name of my right hon. Friend and others and takes note of it.

Mr. Douglas Jay: As the decision is a plain breach of the undertakings given at the time of the Treaty of Accession in 1972 and the referendum in 1975, will the Minister undertake that no more funds will be paid into the EEC budget until the breach of faith is reversed?

Mr. Walker: I will give no such undertaking. I have said clearly that the Government will be considering and reporting to the House what action they intend to take.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the Minister confirm that, had the Luxembourg compromise not been breached, the increase in agricultural support prices would have been much the same? Does he regard the budgetary contribution of a full year as more than a marginal increase? Will he consider emphasising not the relatively small practical effect of what has happened on Great Britain's finances and position, but the importance of obtaining some agreement on the future of the


Luxembourg compromise, perhaps involving a change of definition of what is essential to national interests rather than what is convenient to the Government of the day?

Mr. Walker: It would be difficult to define in any document words which covered all questions of what a Government considered to be their national interests. Until now a Government's view of national interest has been accepted by the Community. I believe that is possibly correct.
As for the level of agricultural prices, I made it clear in my statement that we agreed with substantial parts of the package that we negotiated. I said that I would have preferred to have a lower co-responsibility levy with an appropriate proportionate reduction in milk prices. I believe that some of the cereal prices should have been somewhat lower. That remains our position.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does the Minister agree that the abrogation of the Luxembourg accord is the most significant and important event that has occurred in the Community since its enlargement? It has the widest and most disquieting implications, whether or not one believes in Great Britain's membership. Will he ensure that we have an early debate during which the House can express its view?

Mr. Walker: I agree completely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the abrogation of the Luxembourg accord is a major departure and of immense significance to the future operation of the Community.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) raised a related topic. It is essential that Europe now decides the matter. It could be—this is purely speculation—that whereas the Commission was delighted yesterday at the breach of the Luxembourg convention, the result of that breach will be that in the future Community practice will be more permanently enshrined and legally binding than is the case at present.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that Liberals believe that we shall see no genuine progress in the Community until majority voting is accepted? The Council's decision may end up being the best outcome for the Community for years. Is it not hypocritical for the Minister to condemn the breach when in seeking budgetary restitution he has sought to change the rules? As the Minister of Agriculture, can he tell us the views of the NFU, and, as a Conservative, the views of the Conservative group in the European Parliament?

Mr. Walker: I reject completely the view of the hon. Gentleman, who is presumably speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party. Those who have had detailed experience of negotiating in Europe, especially on agricultural matters which after all represent the greatest proportion of the European budget, know that if, over the years, matters had been passed by a majority vote, Great Britain and Italy—as the two importing countries—would have been treated exceedingly badly. I believe that there would be considerable danger and possibly a great deal of disruption in Europe if majority voting prevailed.
As for trying to change the rules on the budget, I should point out that every country in Europe concedes that there needs to be adjustment in the rules. We have negotiated in accordance with Community procedures to obtain those changes. That is different from changing the procedures and rules that have operated for 16 years without debate, discussion or consultation.

Mr. Tom Normanton: Can the Minister say in broad percentage terms what main objective he set when he entered into negotiations for the price review? Will he also say at what point he had to break off further negotiation and how big the gap was?
If I anticipate my right hon. Friend's views correctly, may I suggest that the price of that gap may prove to be small when set alongside the unprecedented historic achievement of European support for sanctions?

Mr. Walker: I believe that it would be very much to the discredit of Europe if procedures were allowed to be broken, or arrangements for farm prices or the budget were affected, by Europe taking a view about the actions of a military dictator in invading the sovereign territory of a member State. In the negotiations with which I have bent involved in the front line over the period, no member State and no Minister has mentioned, referred to or implied that the Falklands issue was part of the negotiations. I do not believe that these two matters are connected. As for the degree to which I still disagree with the price fixing, if my hon. Friend examines my statement he will see that I have listed the areas in which I am still in dispute.

Mr. Thomas Torney: In view of the utter disregard shown by the Common Market for United Kingdom interests, does the Minister agree that what has happened confirms the view of a great number of my right hon. and hon. Friends that it is time that the Government took us out of the Common Market? Will he give some consideration to stopping our payments to the Common Market—if not entirely, those concerned with the disastrous common agricultural policy?

Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Gentleman has long held views which are hostile to Great Britain's membership of the European Community. The reason why I said yesterday's events were a sad day for Europe is that those who, like the hon. Gentleman, are opposed to our membership of Europe, and those who have doubts about it, will have been gained an adverse opinion because of the decisions and procedures adopted. That is why I think that it is regrettable that a number of our Community partners and the Commission pursued the course that they did. As for payments and costs, there is and always has been a strong duty on the Community to agree quickly to budget changes. They should have been dealt with in parallel and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made relevant proposals to the Community. The sooner that takes place, the better.

Sir Angus Maude: Since it is obvious that no partnership can survive for long if some of the partners are prepared to change the rules in the middle to suit their own interests, ought not the Government urgently to request an early meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers which might then tell us finally what the rules are and will remain?

Mr. Walker: I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a very urgent matter. I add to my right hon. Friend s view that it is impossible to have a partnership where the rules are changed for the convenience of any one member or group of members. When this negotiation commenced we requested that there should be an urgent meeting of Foreign Ministers to discuss any change in procedure which should be made. But I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be taking up this matter urgently.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the White Paper issued by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1971 and the "Yes" pamphlet issued by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) in 1975 implied that the Luxembourg arrangement was part of the treaty arrangements, when it was not? Since the right hon. Gentleman has stressed the importance of continuing this arrangement, can he say why, on 13 June 1972, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends voted against an amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) which would have written this veto into the Bill being considered at the time? Would not it have been better if they had voted for it, and would they not be in a stronger position now as a result?

Mr. Walker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1966 this agreement was reached, that by 1972, six years later, on no occasion had it been breached, and that for the subsequent 10 years on no occasion was it breached. Indeed, I could go back even further and say that it is a pity that this was not part of the original treaty. All that I can say is that for 16 years there was no violation of this agreement.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Will not my right hon. Friend confirm that, although the Luxembourg compromise was reached in 1966, at the time of the negotiations in 1971 it was made clear time and time again—amongst others by President Pompidou—that it was accepted that, although it was not written into Community law, it was part and parcel of the Community? It is the violation of that acceptance, which we thought was given in good faith, that we ought to stand up against at present.

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir, and there have been various occasions since when the President of France and other European leaders have confirmed their total allegiance to this principle. That is why in these circumstances, after 16 years of compliance, of benefit and of use by all member States, it is all the more surprising to discover that a number of those member States which violated the principle yesterday have used the principle a great deal over the years.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister met the French President and that the British Foreign Secretary met the French Foreign Minister within days of this decision being initiated by the French Government, why has the action taken by the French Government come as such a surprise? Bearing in mind the impact which majority voting will have on the shopping basket of the British housewife, was not this touched on in the discussions between the Prime Minister and the French President and between the Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Minister?

Mr. Walker: Dealing first with the right hon. Gentleman's side remark, I repeat that the impact on prices over one year will be equivalent to the increase in prices in one month under the last Labour Government.
As for the remarks of the President of France and the meetings with the Prime Minister of France, bearing in mind that for 16 years the French Government have complied totally with this principle and that it is a principle which they demanded at the outset, whether the intention is to change the rules is not a matter for discussion at every meeting with the President or Prime Minister of France.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does not this incident illustrate the difference of attitude between the British and French Governments to Community affairs, with the British over the years imagining that they were playing a game of "Happy Families" and the French knowing very well that they were playing strip poker?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman refers to differing attitudes. I might point out that what occurred yesterday was not the result of the actions of the French Government alone. It was achieved by seven member Governments working with the Commission.

Sir Anthony Meyer: While one accepts the need for a veto where vital national interests are concerned, though no such veto existed when Britain applied originally to join the Community, is it not a fact that a too ready recourse to the veto—in other words abuse of the Luxembourg compromise—has made it impossible to achieve those changes in the Community which are necessary if it is better to suit our purposes?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I do not accept that view. Acceptance of that view is saying that the types of changes which, for example, the United Kingdom seeks to obtain are necessarily the changes that a majority vote would produce. That is not necessarily the truth. The Community has made considerable improvements and progress in a number of areas after tedious and long negotiations because of the need to respect the interest of member States. I do not believe that better progress would be made by moving to majority voting.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is not the ending of this right of veto, and therefore of the protection of individual national interests, somewhat more than a breach of faith? It is in fact a breach of the constitutional position which was accepted by this country when we entered the Community. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain whether the Government are prepared to accept this watershed as the basis for withdrawal from the Common Market?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although I accept that it will take time for the Government to decide what are the right steps to take, in the interim can my right hon. Friend at least give a firm assurance that in no circumstances will the Government accept or implement a new common fisheries policy which is approved by a majority vote? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that while there is a vital issue at stake, it will help if that is made clear now?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I confirm that and make it absolutely clear now.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the action of Sir Henry Plumb and his fellow Conservative MEPs who voted for the abolition of the national veto? In whose name were they speaking? Is it not clear that Sir Henry Plumb seems to vote as a farmer first, as an Englishman second, and as a Conservative third?

Mr. Walker: I am not the spokesman for Sir Henry Plumb. I can only confirm that at no time on this issue did Sir Henry seek my advice. If he had done so, I should have advised him to the contrary of what he said.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I declare my interest, well known to the House, as a Member of the European Parliament. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing improved arrangements for beef and sheepmeat, on restoring the butter subsidy, on reducing the co-responsibility levy and on doing a very great deal for our glasshouse producers regarding Dutch gas prices. May I also assure my right hon. Friend that at no stage, contrary to what the press and Opposition hon. Members have said, was a vote taken on the matter of the Luxembourg compromise within the European Democratic Group, of which the Conservatives are members, and that many European Conservatives voted against this amendment?

Mr. Walker: I note what my hon. Friend says about Conservative Members of the European Parliament. As for the other issue, as I said in my original statement, there are a number of areas of considerable importance to British agriculture and to consumers where important improvements have been made.

Mr. John Morris: Do I understand that the Minister intends to implement the package forthwith? Does not implementation mean surrender? How can he confidently tell his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that he will not implement a common fisheries policy? Has not France shown that she intends to reserve her power of veto for anything that is against her interests?

Mr. Walker: We will certainly implement those proposals that must be implemented for the entirety of British agriculture. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing that the changes in farmers' prices, many of which are required and urgently desired, and the changes which would also benefit consumers as I have described, should not be implemented. That would be illegal. They will, therefore, be implemented. It has been suggested that there is a sell-out. After the present price-fixing, the

proportion of European funds out of the CAP that will come to Britain is exactly double what it was when the Government took office.

Mr. John Farr: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved for British agriculture, especially with regard to the beef premium scheme and the improvement of the milk co-responsibility levy. In view of the latest serious development, does my right hon. Friend think that it is right and proper for us to continue to negotiate with our Community partners before the unanimity of accord is written into national legislation?

Mr. Walker: It is obviously vital to continue negotiations on issues that are in our national interest. It is understandable that the agricultural implications of recent events have been considered to be far less import ant than the constitutional ones. As my hon. Friend said, the substantial improvements and changes to the beef premium scheme will be of considerable importance to British agriculture.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman raised an important question with regard to fisheries. He said that he will implement the proposals because it would be illegal not to. What happens if the proposals for a common fisheries policy are also legally required? Will he then unilaterally extend either the 50-mile or 200-mile limit and protect them? I assure him that as long as he continues to try to resist the siren voices asking for a sell-out of vital British interests with regard to the veto, the Opposition will support him.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I do not believe that there will ever be any question of the imposition of a fishing limit. As a matter of historical interest, on the two previous occasions when we were near to obtaining a fishing agreement that our fishermen could have accepted, one other member State vetoed it. Had there been majority voting, that member State would have been affected.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received notice of two applications under Standing Order No. 9.

European Community (Agricultural Prices)

Mr. David Stoddart: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the action of the EEC Council of Ministers in forcing through agricultural price increases by majority vote in defiance of the Luxembourg compromise whereby majority votes would not be taken on important matters of vital national interest for any member State.
I have just heard that there will be discussions between the usual channnels about the debate. For reasons that I shall explain later, the matter is urgent and should be debated today.
The matter is specific because, by taking a decision—which involves swingeing price increases for British consumers and adds £1,000 million to the food bill—by majority vote and ignoring the British veto, the Council has violated all the conventions that have previously governed its business. That the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday that it was a sad and damaging day for the Community's history and that the EEC would come to regret its actions demonstrates that the matter is specific and important.
There can be no doubt that the matter is of profound importance, because the very sovereignty of the Crown and Parliament may be at stake. The future development of the EEC into a federal European State has been brought at least one step nearer as a result of the disgraceful action of seven European States overriding Britain's veto, thereby ignoring her vital interests in pursuit of their own.
The matter is of far-reaching importance to Britain's vital national interests. Britain's veto was set aside yesterday on the issue of farm prices. Tomorrow, in spite of what the Minister said, it could be set aside with regard to fishing, energy, North Sea oil and a wide range of other issues.
I remind the House that successive Governments have given assurances to Parliament and the people that within the Common Market vital British national interests would be safeguarded by the veto and that there was
no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty".
Cmnd. 4715, of July 1971, which was repeated in March 1975, states categorically:
On a question where a Government considers that vital national interests are involved, it is established that the decisions should be unanimous.
The Government of that time sent a notice to every person in the land before the referendum. It posed the question:
Will Parliament lose its power?
The answer was "No". It went on to say:
It is the Council of Ministers, and not the Market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister

representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same right to veto.
That absolute assurance was given to the British people—that supreme British national interests would be safeguarded. That has now been thrust aside. The assurances have been rendered worthless. The question of sovereignty that arises from the matter is at least as important as that over the Falkland Islands. We should make no mistake about that.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Send the fleet.

Mr. Stoddart: The matter is urgent, because the Government must respond to this latest unfriendly act by the EEC. By next week the Falkland crisis will be such that this matter will be pushed to one side. We may have invaded by then. The matter is of supreme importance. I understand that the Cabinet will meet tomorrow to consider its response to the EEC's unfriendly act.
It is essential that, on a matter of such supreme importance, especially as British people have shown increasing opposition to the EEC for some time, Parliament should be allowed the opportunity to advise, guide and perhaps even encourage the Government in the crisis. The House should express its view of the possible options that are available, including the withholding of financial contributions, other funds and the empty chair option.
The matter is urgent, because the voice of the Foreign Office—the same Foreign Office that brought us to the crisis in the Falkland Islands—is one of sell-out and equivocation. It needs the backbone and stamina of Parliament to put some resolve and backbone into the Government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker I hope that you will grant a debate today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the action of the EEC Council of Ministers in forcing through agricultural price increases by majority vote in defiance of the Luxembourg compromise whereby majority votes would not be taken on important matters of vital national interest for any member State".
The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that I consciously allowed the hon. Gentleman to make many points that he would have made had the application been granted. I thought that it was in the interests of the House that he should be allowed to do so, and I exercised my discretion accordingly. The House knows of the exchanges that took place earlier, and naturally they also figure in my consideration.
The House has given me instructions to give no reasons for my decisions when I give my ruling. I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Private Business (Mr. Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: I wish to give a ruling on the point of order raised with me yesterday by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I have considered the point which the hon. Member raised concerning the availability to Members of amendments to Private Bills. In my opinion, the hon. Member raised a valid point of order. I have therefore arranged that copies of promoters' amendments on Consideration, of verbal amendments on Third Reading and of Lords amendments shall in future be obtainable by Members from the Vote Office.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I thank you very much indeed, Mr. Speaker, for that ruling, which I believe will be of great service and convenience to the House.

District Plans (Abolition)

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the preparation of district plans in advance of detailed consideration of planning applications and public inquiries.
Immediately it becomes public knowledge that an area of land adjacent or close to one's home will or may be used for residential or industrial development, the disease of blight is contracted. It manifests itself in many ways. Those who have always been pleased to live on the edge of a green belt, and purchased their property for that very reason, are sickened by the knowledge that they will soon form part of an urban sprawl. When these residents contemplate moving home, they are advised that the proposed development has lowered the value of their property. As the standard conveyance searches reveal to the solicitors representing potential purchasers that nearby land will be the subject of development, purchasers drop out of the house sale rapidly. The urban market is a very different market from that of the green belt. Victims of blight then have to start their house sales all over again at lower prices.
Another symptom of blight is that published district plans are held up as the Holy Bible of local planning positively to refuse the development of many more suitable sites. History has shown that local government officers are not always right. Indeed, they prove often to be wrong.
I recognise that public participation, consultation and orderly planning is desirable, but there are great dangers. By focusing one's attention on new industrial sites, Iand provision for the expansion of existing companies is often neglected. Compensation for companies affected by this—another kind of blight—will have to be considered.
District plans can lead to massive corruption, because if, by such a prepared plan, "change of use" from green belt to residential or industrial land is influenced, a fortune is made overnight. The North-East of England produced an early structure plan, which was submitted in 1974, approved in 1977, and was doubtless under preparation a year or two in advance of publication in the early 1970s. Is it just coincidence that wide-scale corruption was revealed in the North-East over that period, leading to the downfall of hon. Members of this House, if only by association, and of North-East councillors, architects and civil servants? The Teesside plan was on the drawing board for seven years before it was approved, so there were seven years of blight in advance of approval and many areas in Cleveland are still unnecessarily blighted.
My Bill is restricted to the more local district plan, which follows the structure plan. Why should we allow the plunder of our green belt by local planning officers when they themselves spend most of their working lives refusing planning permission applications on the very ground that they are protecting the green belt policy?
My constituency of Huddersfield West, in West Yorkshire, is now reeling from the shock of the publication of a district plan, and petitions and public meetings are under way. Why are local planners allowed to sport with people's feelings in this way? Hon. Members will agree that probably the most important purchase that the majority of people make in their lifetime is that of the


houses in which they live. Huddersfield is now under the umbrella of the Kirklees metropolitan council which, like many local authorities, has miscalculated in the past and will doubtless do so again.
Councils with programmes of redevelopment which outstrip either available finance or political reality may find themselves owners of unoccupied property or land without the resources to develop. Some are continuing, even now, to purchase privately owned property without having the money to rehabilitate or demolish. The result is that properties lie empty, with their windows bricked or boarded up—a situation probably caused by two different departments, each not knowing what the other is up to; one purchasing the property and the other without the funds to repair or develop it.
Every planning application must be judged on its merits so that no home is blighted and every parcel of land is still worth consideration. My Bill provides for this.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Geoffrey Dickens and Mr. Michael Brown.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think that that sums it up.

DISTRICT PLANS (ABOLITION)

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens accordingly presented a Bill to prevent the preparation of district plans in advance of detailed consideration of planning applications and public inquiries: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 9 July and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

Orders of the Day — Employment Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House has now completed its detailed scrutiny of the Employment Bill. It is appropriate that in moving Third Reading I should remind the House of the aims of the Bill and its main features.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his statement to the House on 23 November last, said that further legislation was needed, first, to safeguard the liberty of the individual from the abuse of industrial power and, secondly, to improve the operation of the labour market by providing a balanced framework of industrial relations law. That is what the Bill does.
More that half the clauses in the Bill deal with the closed shop. We make no apology for that. The Government's view of the closed shop is perfectly clear. It is contrary to the traditions of personal liberty in this country for someone to be required to join a trade union in order to obtain or hold a job. Of course it is entirely legitimate for a trade union to seek 100 per cent. membership by voluntary means, but what is not acceptable in a free society is for a trade union to enforce membership as a condition of employment by means of the closed shop.
I hope that hon. Members in every part of the House accept that it is entirely fitting that our first priority in considering questions about the closed shop should be in terms of personal freedom and the rights of the individual. After all, it is to champion such rights against powerful corporate interests elsewhere in the realm that Parliament exists. We should not lose sight of the fact that a collective such as a trade union or a closed shop exists in essence and in origin for the sake of the individual, not the individual for the sake of the collective. So when the closed shop becomes not a protector, but a persecutor, of the individual, then it becomes a perversion, and it is right and reasonable for Parliament to step in. There is evidence not only that the danger of persecution lurks potentially in the very notion of a closed shop, but that it has broken out in recent years in many actual individual cases and acts of persecution.
As to the potential danger of closed shops, I remind the House of the Donovan commission report, which, in paragraph 598, states:
The Closed Shop as it operates at present is not always in the best interests either of workers or of the community as a whole. It is liable from time to time to cause substantial injustice to individuals from which they have no effective means of redress. It also contributes to a system of training which is out of date and inadequate to the country's needs".
Or, again, let us consider the words of Lord McCarthy in his book, "The Closed Shop in Britain". He said that the closed shop
undoubtedly sometimes results in a restriction of individual liberty, and probably it sometimes has disadvantageous economic effects. Non-unionists and employers are often


coerced and existing members are forced to obey union rules and orders by means of the threat of expulsion from the job. In its pre-entry form it is sometimes used to deny whole classes of workers the right to compete for particular jobs".
These potential dangers, latent in the very concept of a closed shop, have found scandalous expression in a number of ugly cases in recent years. Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, was the sacking by British Rail of the three railway workers Mr. Young, Mr. James and Mr. Webster in 1976 for non-union membership in a closed shop. The European Court of Human Rights, to which they took their case, found that their sacking was a specific violation of article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In reaching their verdict, the court's judges, referring to article 11, stated:
It strikes at the very substance of this Article to exert pressure, of the kind applied to the applicants, in order to compel someone to join an association contrary to his convictions".

Mr. Harold Walker: I do not want to correct all the Minister's selective misinterpretations and misquotations, but one is repeatedly used by the Government. In all fairness to the author, that quotation should be completed. It is from Lord McCarthy's book on the closed shop. After the passage quoted by the Minister, Lord McCarthy says:
The inevitable restrictions on personal liberty that they involve"—
that is, closed shops—
and even the possible maldistribution of economic resources which result, seem to me to be the price which must be paid if the unions are to be allowed the freedom they require in order to pursue such objectives in the most effective way.
In all fairness to Lord McCarthy, when the Minister is quoting that part of his book, he should read that passage too.

Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman accused me of misinterpretation and misquotation. I did not interpret what Lord McCarthy or the Donovan commission said; I made accurate quotations.
I shall demonstrate the validity of the facts set out in those quotations. It was not only the Strasbourg three who suffered in that period. We know that about 40 British Rail employees were sacked in similar circumstances to the three who took their case to Strasbourg. We believe, and have some evidence for our belief, that several hundred other individuals lost their jobs in that period under not dissimilar circumstances. Such was the rigour of the law—the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976—in this period that many of those dismissed would have been in danger of a charge of vexatious litigation if they had even tried to complain of unfair dismissal before a tribunal.
The worst excesses of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 were put right by our last Employment Act in 1980. But even since then the tiger of persecution, which is ever potentially on the prowl in the framework of the closed shop, has shown its claws again. This time it was in the Sandwell case. In July 1980 NALGO balloted its members at Sandwell council over the possible introduction of a closed shop agreement. Only about half of its members voted and there was a small majority in favour of a closed shop—810 to 671 votes. An agreement was introduced and subsequently, in a well publicised case, Joanna Harris was dismissed for refusing to join a union, despite the fact that she was an existing non-union employee when the agreement was introduced,

and that was clearly in defiance of her rights under the 1980 Act. The resulting furore led NALGO members to ask for another ballot on the closed shop. That further ballot in April 1981 produced a 2:1 majority against the closed shop, following which NALGO gave six months' notice of withdrawal from the closed shop agreement. The council has so far refused to accept this notice, resting on the supposed justification that the other three unions party to the agreement, which in total represent 255 employees only as opposed to NALGO's 3,500, do not wish to withdraw. The whole episode shows clearly that the results of such ballots cannot be ignored.
That episode throws into comic relief the bitter hostility of the Trades Union Congress to the idea introduced in the Bill of validating ballots on closed shops, when such ballots are common practice in one of the biggest TUC affiliates, NALGO. It also shows that when one is dealing with a ruthless, idealogically motivated Socialist local authority, one must ensure that compensation for unfair dismissal is on a perceptible scale. For example, no district auditor will pay much attention to the goings on at Walsall council, when one of the four sacked dinner ladies qualified for a basic award of only £98.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I should like to ask one question as my right hon. Friend is referring to secret ballots in NALGO. Will my right hon. Friend take cognisance of the fact that, despite the conference decision of NALGO last year to affiliate to the Labour Party, when that decision was put to a secret ballot of the NALGO membership, the majority decided by eight to one not to have a political fund and not to affiliate to the Labour Party? Does not that underline the importance of having secret ballots?

Mr. Alison: I join my hon. Friend in noting with perception and enthusiasm the record of NALGO in holding ballots on the closed shop and matters connected with affiliation to the Labour Party. We rejoice in that and hope that it will be widely emulated by other affiliated members pf the TUC.
I need not spell out further details of the Walsall sackings. That was a classic case of coercion. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is a little sick of that, but he has often quoted other examples, such as Taff Vale.
However, I will say this to some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who argue defensively that the fate of the Walsall four is no worse than, or different from, other dinner ladies elsewhere who may have been made redundant on economic rather than ideological grounds and who receive relatively modest compensation. Such a defensive argument—and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East regularly advanced it—is wholly specious and fallacious. There is all the difference in the world between a situation where, on the one hand, everybody—unions, employers and the Government—is trying concertedly to save an individual's job and, if they do not succeed, trying unitedly to find him another and helping and supporting him meanwhile; and, on the other hand, a situation where, either in collusion or singly, the union and employer, on ideological grounds, drive out an individual for whom there is a job, which he is qualified to do and is doing well, in circumstances which may make it impossible for him to get another.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister acknowledge that many Tory councils, especially in recent times, have sacked many direct labour workers on ideological grounds or others as a result of the policy of reducing the staff? A classic case has occurred in Southend where the Tory council, despite a vote by the dustmen to carry on the services of the direct-labour 'organisation, accepted not the lowest tender but the second lowest tender submitted by one of its buddies, who is a Tory councillor in St. Albans. His firm, Exclusive Cleaning Ltd., was given the right to take on staff. All the refuse workers who were members of a trade union are now out on the stones. Not one employee of Exclusive Cleaning Ltd. in Southend is now a member of a trade union. What does the Minister think about that?

Mr. Alison: The Bill is not red, blue, pink or green. It is even-handed. If there are unfair dismissals on ideological grounds, compensation will be available whether the council concerned is SDP, Labour, Conservative or whatever.
These realities and factors are the background to the Bill's provisions on the closed shop.
I am glad that by a massive majority of 107 votes on Second Reading and by massive majorities in votes in the House yesterday culminating in a majority of 235 to 12 in a Division late last night when only the SDP voted against, Parliament has given its whole-hearted endorsement to the Bill. Parliament faithfully reflected the views of our constituents.
The MORI poll of November 1981 showed that four out of five, or 79 per cent., and 77 per cent. of union members agreed there should be regular secret ballots on whether closed shops should continue or not. Three out of five, 60 per cent., and 54 per cent. of union members agreed that unions should have to pay substantial compensation—which could be over £20,000—to workers sacked for refusing to join a closed shop which has not been balloted on.
I have no hesitation in repeating the words that my right hon. Friend used on Second Reading in relation to the closed shop:
when the Bill reaches the statute book it will provide the most comprehensive and the most effective statutory protection for non-union employees that we have ever had in this country".
We will be reflecting the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the British people.

Mr. David Winnick: What the Minister is now saying was said during proceedings on the Industrial Relations Act. Then it was said that that measure was widely popular in the country, that it was necessary, and so on. No doubt at that time the Minister voted accordingly in the House of Commons. Does the Minister agree that the Act was quickly discredited and that, by the 1974 Parliament, there was no enthusiasm in the Conservative Party to try to preserve it?

Mr. Alison: The appropriate comment is to reflect on what will happen at the next general election. My bet is that there will be no majority in the House of Commons in the next decade for the repeal of the Act, as it will be, or any of the steps that we propose in it.
I turn now to the later clauses in the Bill. Again our objectives are specific, limited and reasonable and, in the words of my right hon. Friend "essentially modest", like himself. The exaggerated scaremongering of the

Opposition shows that they recognise that as clearly as everyone else. But there has been a lot of misleading talk by the TUC and others about Taff Vale and other episodes in trade union demonology.
Because of that misleading talk I must take a few minutes to remind the House what the Bill does not do. It does not take trade unions back to the position that they were in following the Taff Vale judgment when trade unions and their officials had no immunity at all and their funds were at risk for any and every strike or other form of industrial action. As my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading:
There is nothing in the Bill that prevents trade unions from organising, gaining recognition, bargaining collectively or from organising industrial action by their members in pursuit of improvements in their pay and conditions or in defence of their jobs."—[Official Report, 8 February 1982, Vol. 17, c. 742, 744.]
The Bill does two things in these later clauses. First, it corrects the extraordinary anomaly whereby since 1906 trade unions themselves have enjoyed a virtually total immunity from actions in tort—an immunity wider than that enjoyed by any other person or organisation in this country, including, as the Donovan commission pointed out, the Crown. In practical terms, that immunity has meant that if a trade union orders one of its officials to do something unlawful, the official can be sued for an injunction and damages, but the union itself is virtually never liable and its funds always protected, save in a few narrowly defined circumstances. No other trade union movement anywhere in the world has ever had that degree of legislative protection. The truth of the matter is that it is unnecessary and indefensible, as the Donovan commission recognised when it recommended that the immunity of trade unions should be limited to action in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. The Royal Commission of 1906, whose report led to the 1906 Act, recommended against a blanket immunity for trade unions. I make no apology for quoting again from its report:
That vast and powerful institutions should be permanently licensed to apply the funds they possess to do wrong to others and by that wrong inflict on them damage … and yet not be liable to make redress out of those funds would be a state of things opposed to the very idea of law and order and justice".

Mr. Giles Radice: The Minister is repeating a number of misstatements which we heard in Committee. We have tried to correct him. I hope this will be the last time. The Green Paper pointed out that we have a system of immunities instead of positive rights which other countries have. They are not privileges. They are alternatives to rights. Therefore, they are not wicked or sinister. They make up the system that we have to enable trade unions to operate. I wish the Minister would learn that simple fact which every O-level student knows.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is again misleading the House. I am not concerned with the way in which the present position has arisen. Whether it has arisen through our common law provisions and the derogations made from it, or by whatever other means, the fact remains that no other trade union movement in the world has had the degree of legislative protection that is enjoyed by ours. I repeat that because it is valid.
The Bill restricts the immunity for trade unions as the 1906 Royal Commission and the Donovan commission recommended. Why is it so necessary for a trade union to


have immunity even outside a trade dispute when its own officials have never had such an immunity? These are the questions the Opposition must answer if anyone is going to take their opposition to this part of the Bill at all seriously.
When considering these matters, we should remind ourselves what the concept of immunity means. It means that people who would otherwise have been able to bring civil proceedings to secure redress against unlawful behaviour are prevented from doing so. In that sense an immunity is a privilege—a privilege which must be used responsibly, with proper regard for the interests of others and of the community as a whole.
Immunity should not be used as a cloak for indiscriminate industrial action, for strikes or blacking directed at those who have no interest in a trade dispute and no means of affecting its outcome, but whose jobs and businesses may be severely damaged as a result. That is why the Bill amends the definition of a trade dispute to exclude disputes which are not predominantly about terms and conditions of employment or other matters listed in the statutory definition, to exclude disputes which are purely between workers and workers, to exclude disputes which are exclusively about matters overseas, and to exclude disputes which are not between an employer and his employees. These changes were urged on us by many people in the course of the consultations on the Green Paper.
I have seen reports that the TUC intends to urge employers not to take advantage of the protection that this and other parts of the Bill will give them. It is, of course, for employers to decide whether to make use of the common law rights which are restored to them by the Bill and by the Employment Act 1980. No one—despite the wild claims of the Opposition—expects a rush of court cases. That is not how the effectiveness of any legislation is measured. But when the TUC goes on to threaten industrial action against any employer who seeks redress at law against unlawful action, it is presuming that it knows the minds of its members. Every opinion poll on this issue shows that it does not. All the proposals that we put before Parliament in the 1980 Act and in the Bill have been shown—and I have quoted some of the evidence—to command the overwhelming support of the British people and the approval of a majority of trade unionists and a huge majority in the House. That may not be a palatable fact to Opposition Members, any more than it is to the leaders of the TUC, but it is a fact none the less. They will have to come to terms with it sooner or later. I move the Third Reading of the Bill so that it may be sooner.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: We have come to the last two hours' consideration of the Bill in the House of Commons. We spent 130 hours over four months considering it in Committee. No substantial changes have been made to the Bill and we remain implacably opposed to it. We shall vote against it to a man. I expect that every Tory will vote for it. The Liberals will be consistent and vote for it. Their alliance partners, the members of the Social Democratic Party, after splitting three ways on Second Reading, are now unanimous in their decision to abstain. That is a sorry state of affairs, not only for them but for the House of Commons. I do not know how their other partners will regard their behaviour.
During our proceedings, some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), said that the Bill was a modest measure. It is nothing of the kind. Taken with the 1980 Act it represents the biggest threat to trade unionism in Britain since 1971. Its impact has to be seen alongside the Government's economic measures. The Government's economic and investment decisions have been detrimental to job prospects. They have contributed to the inexorable rise in the number of men and women out of jobs and the bleak outlook for job prospects for the young in particular. The Bill must also be seen alongside the Government's determination to privatise some major nationalised industries and cut expenditure on public services.
I have no doubt that the ideological belief—perhaps sincere—of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister is that the market works better without trade unionism, or at least with weakened trade unionism. As the Minister of State has just said, the Secretary of State believes that the Bill will improve the operation of the labour market. He really means that it will improve the operation of the market generally.
Industrial relations in Britain are not all that bad. Mercifully, neither the Secretary of State nor any of his colleagues have been able to point to a deterioration in industrial relations in Britain in the past few years. They have not been able to say that to justify the measure.
Days lost as a result of industrial disputes in the last year were at their lowest level since 1941. That has been brought about to some degree by the Government's unique achievement in turning the whole of the country into a depressed area afflicted by mass unemployment. I am prepared to admit that had we maintained a reasonably high level of employment there may have been more industrial disputes. During the passage of the Bill no Minister has been able to claim that there has been a great deterioration in industrial relations. The Bill and the 1980 Act are more to do with restricting trade union activity, when and if the economy starts to pick up again. It will be there to block collective bargaining.
For all his bluster, I believe that the Secretary of State is hesitant about the powers that he is taking. The only part of the Bill that needs to come into operation immediately is clause 1 and schedule 1. That gives retrospective power to pay out £2 million in taxpayers' money, at the Secretary of State's sole discretion, to an alleged 400 people who refused to become trade unionists between 1974 and 1980. The Secretary of State can decide when any other part of the Bill comes into operation. Clause 1 and schedule 1 give the Secretary of State powers to set aside any of the industrial tribunal judicial findings involving any such cases in those six years.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I must put the right hon. Gentleman right. It does not give me power to set aside industrial tribunal findings. I cannot make fair a dismissal that was found to be unfair. I cannot change the findings at all. I am given power only to compensate people who would have been adjudged to be unfairly dismissed had the law been what it became in 1980.

Mr. Varley: I do not disagree with that. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State can pay fairly large levels of compensation to people who, under the law as it was, were judged not to have been unfairly dismissed. I


accept what the Secretary of State says. By any rational interpretation it seems that the provision is retroactive. Perhaps retrospective is the wrong word. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was right to use the words that he used.
The Secretary of State is hesitant about bringing the other parts of the Bill into operation. Why is he hesitant? Could he be becoming nervous about some of the powers that he is taking? If he is not, some who will have to try and operate the legislation are extremely nervous about it.
The Financial Times of Friday 30 April contains a report on an industrial relations conference organised by that newspaper, at which Dr. James McFarlane, the director general of the Engineering Employers Federation, had something to say. That federation is the country's largest employer group and the largest constituent of the Confederation of British Industry. In the engineering industry about 40 per cent. of manual workers and 10 per cent. of the rest of its staff are covered by a closed shop. Dr. McFarlane said:
In general, we have no enthusiasm for the 1982 Bill's proposals for the review of existing closed shops. We can be quite confident that unions are not going to co-operate in holding ballots of existing closed shops: and it is certain that this factor combined with the relatively large compensation available will excite a good number of unfair dismissal cases and industrial relations trouble in the factories.
Dr. McFarlane accepted that little can be done about the present position, given the Government's political will, and said that employers will have to live with the consequences of the legislation as best they can. He added:
But we do believe that the Government would do well to defer bringing in the provision for the review of existing closed shops until after the next general election".
There are many who say that that is precisely what the Secretary of State will do. It is said that, having taken these powers, and appreciating the difficulty that could arise, he will delay implementation until after the next election. When he replies to the debate I hope that he will reveal his views and explain them in clear terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) tried to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to do so yesterday and he received a dusty answer.
The balloting and reballoting provisions on union membership agreements will be a source of anxiety to all serious employers. We know that the Institute of Personnel Management, the Industrial Society and the General Council of British Shipping all have reservations. Some organisations are extremely hostile to the Bill's provisions.
There are other areas of the Bill that will be much more dangerous than the attack that will be made on union membership agreements—for example, the provisions that will make unlawful all commercial contracts that require union labour-only contracts. Again, these provisions will create difficulties for employers. The liabilities cover a wide area and could be so uncertain in their application that any person could sue for damages if the law were broken. The words in the Bill are "adversely affected".
Employers who want to maintain good relations with their trade union work force will find that their contracts are undercut by firms that employ non-union labour. Their businesses will be put in jeopardy. This is entirely in line with the Government's thinking. They believe that non-unionism is better than unionism. The Bill tries to squeeze

the concept of a trade dispute out of our understanding of industrial relations. It tries to do so in a way that in my view will be shown to be impractical.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that by using non-union organised labour on building sites, for example, the green light will be given to lowering safety standards that have been built up over the years? Industrial injuries are responsible for the loss of more working days per year every year than strike action. If the Government were really concerned about raising health and safety standards and providing better working conditions, they would not be providing "lump" labour with an "open sesame".

Mr. Varley: Some employers regard union labour-only contracts as a safeguard to ensure that proper skills are used, that safety arrangements are properly observed and that accidents are held to a minimum. I am sure that some employers have made that view known to the Secretary of State.
There are other considerations. Disputes between worker and worker are to be unlawful. We know that few if any disputes between worker and worker do not involve management. Demarcation disputes may involve which skill should be used in a certain process, the application of new technology, differentials or grading, but managements are not innocent bystanders. Some strikes will be declared unlawful because they are political. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not rush to intervene to tell me that all political strikes are unlawful, and always have been under labour legislation, and that "political" does not appear in the Bill. I know that.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman is making progress.

Mr. Varley: I have always known that. I shall explain to the right hon. Gentleman what people really mean when they talk about political strikes. By narrowing the range of disputes to those that relate mainly to industrial matters, instead of being connected with them, there is a redefinition that excludes from legality, or restricts, great areas of industrial action that have been normal and lawful for decades.
A strike against the Government's privatisation schemes in public industries may be declared unlawful. For example, if gas workers want to take action to ensure that gas showrooms are not privatised, their action could be adjudged unlawful. Industrial action may be taken against public expenditure cuts and it may be banned. The courts will have to decide, and it is to that that we object.
Lord Justice Scarman once said that it is not a good thing to put judges in the driving seat of industrial relations. Judges are not notoriously good at dealing with industrial relations problems. Furthermore, the Government are removing the immunity of trade unions and their funds from liability in tort, and cases will come before the courts. If the Bill's provisions are implemented, cases will come before the courts as sure as night follows day. Injunctions will be granted. The instructions that will go from national presidents to general secretaries, executive committees and on to local or junior lay officers will in some instances become opaque because of the nature of the organisation and government of trade unions. The instructions will not be clear, issues will find their way to the courts and damages will be awarded. At that stage


the balloon will go up. When that happens there will not be only 20, 30, 45 or 50 Members in the Chamber. The Secretary of State will have to tell the House that something comparable to the Con-Mech case has arisen.

Mr. Renton: rose—

Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Bill will not take us back to Taff Vale. There are doubts about that. However, it will take us back to the Con-Mech type case. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that case arose when the Industrial Relations Court ordered the sequestration of some of the AUEW's assets. Damages of £122,000 were awarded. A national engineering strike was called and, to the huge relief of the Government of the day and the engineering industry, a rich business man decided to pay the damages. The same thing could happen under the legislation that is now proposed.

Mr. Renton: Apart from saying that the balloon will go up in a grandiose way, what precise argument can the right hon. Gentleman advance that the trade unions, which have assets of £250 million and an annual income of £200 million, should retain total immunity from civil damages when neither their officials nor individual members have such immunity?

Mr. Varley: We are aware of the difficulty that this causes. No amount of injunctions and no amount of fines, or threatened fines, will necessarily divert men and women who believe that they have a genuine grievance. Injunctions and fines will not solve the problem. To bankrupt trade unions by imposing fines of up to £250,000 in any one case—damages could take the penalty up to £750,000—will not improve industrial relations. At least the House of Commons and the country generally are interested in good labour relations.
The balloon will go up and it is no good the right hon. Gentleman thinking otherwise. It is no good saying that sensible employers will not take action because matters might be taken out of their hands. Any person who believes that his interests or business has been affected will be able to take legal action. The Government may feel euphoric at seven o'clock this evening when the Division takes place. They will probably get some cheap cheers from the Tory faithful at Brighton in October, but I believe that even the Government will rue the day they enacted the Bill. When all the sections of the then Act are activated the Government are likely to blunder into one of the most bitter periods of industrial relations that we have ever seen, especially if the economy ever starts to recover.
I have never wanted to keep the law out of industrial relations. Some of the major benefits to workers have been spearheaded through trade unions arguing and succeeding in getting Parliament to enact legislation. Health and safety, legislation on equal pay, sex discrimination and employment protection have all helped tremendously.
There will be more legislation along those lines, but what distinguishes that legislation from the Bill is that on the whole it has benefited workers and their organisations and has been welcomed. This proposed law will never be accepted by the trade unions because it shackles them, promotes non-trade unionism and restricts collective bargaining. It is no good the Secretary of State and the Minister of State abusing trade union leaders and telling them that they are all bureaucrats and out of touch with their members, and that they have seen a public opinion

poll that supports that view and supports the introduction of this measure. That is precisely what the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said when he was Prime Minister and when he took part in the Second Reading debate on the Industrial Relations Bill in 1971. We all know what happened to that Bill and that Prime Minister.
This Bill has little to do with individual freedom. In any case, even at this late stage, we are not taking lessons from the right hon. Members on the Government Benches about individual rights. Any Government who, after a debate lasting one and a half hours, can take away individual protection from over 1 million workers, as they did in 1979, have no right to lecture us about the individual worker. The position of the individual workers is still extremely weak compared with that of the employer and the huge financial strength of the transnational company, which is a mighty power in comparison. The only real protection that the worker has is through his trade union.
This Bill will damage industrial relations; it will do nothing to overcome the formidable economic problems that face this country. We shall continue to proclaim responsible free trade unionism as one of the absolute safeguards of our liberty. This Bill is dangerous, and that is why we shall oppose it. I repeat that we shall take it off the statute book at the first opportunity.

Mr. Reg Prentice: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) has told us that the Opposition will continue to fight for responsible free trade unionism in Britain. That is exactly what we on the Government Benches will fight for and why we shall support the Bill.
It is a great temptation to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield on many of the points that he made. Indeed, I could easily double or treble the length of the brief speech that I shall make by doing so, but I refer to two points only. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of industrial relations legislation provided that it was in the interests of working people. He does not really mean that. He means provided that the legislation is demanded by the TUC bureaucracy. That is not the same thing.
The Bill increases the rights of the individual worker in relation to the closed shop where, over many generations, those rights have been damaged by the operation of trade union bureaucrats and militants. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State quoted a MORI poll. The Government's proposals are supported by working people and by the majority of trade unionists.
On this issue, as on so many others, we are speaking for working people. We are not speaking for the vested interests of the TUC. What the right hon. Gentleman confirmed is that the Labour Party will never—literally never—come to the House and oppose the views of the TUC bureaucracy. I challenge the Opposition to quote any occasion over the past two or three years on which they have taken a stand at the Dispatch Box against the views of the TUC.

Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman hark back to 1969, when the Labour Government introduced, or proposed to introduce, legislation that was opposed by the TUC? He will remember that he took the view of the TUC at the time.

Mr. Prentice: Yes, I took the view of the TUC at that time. I have suffered from interventions on this matter in recent debates and I do not want to go back over history. The Labour Party in Opposition over the past three years, to the best of my knowledge—I hope that I can be contradicted—has not taken a view on any matter, large or small, that is different from that of its trade union paymasters.
The right hon. Gentleman concentrated on the Con-Mech case. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) answered his points fully and the right hon. Gentleman did not respond. The AUEW was in contempt of court. Does the right hon. Gentleman support a situation in which a large trade union, a responsible national body, defies the court, will not attend and will not respond to court decisions? The sequestration of funds was for contempt of court and for nothing else. The political fund was involved. Clause 15(2)(b) precludes that happening. It would be wrong for political or the other special funds mentioned to be touched by sequestration. The Con-Mech situation could not arise in the way suggested.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the balloon would go up. It will do so only if people deliberately intend it to go up, if trade union leaders, through a mixture of masochism and a desire to be martyred, deliberately act in contempt of the law.
I support the Bill as one of a series of measures which were described by the previous Secretary of State for Employment as a step-by-step process. The Government, rightly, have not gone down the same road as the Conservative Government of the 1970s, by having one large Bill on labour relations. They have, bit by bit, identified abuses and introduced modest measures to put them right. The 1980 Act was a useful first step, and this is a useful second one. I hope that we shall have yet more steps, not too far apart, and of reasonably substantial dimension.
The next step should be a Bill to provide for compulsory secret ballots for the election of senior union officers and in major industrial disputes. New clauses 1 and 2 were on the Order Paper last night. The Labour Party was so afraid to face a debate on the need to extend democracy in the unions that we had a series of artificial votes to keep the House occupied until the guillotine fell at midnight.

Mr. Allen McKay: I have worked with the secret ballot in the NUM for ages, without problems. The membership asked its leadership for secret ballots. If the members of other unions want secret ballots, surely they would say so and the rules would be changed.

Mr. Prentice: It would be much better for the unions to carry out the necessary reform themselves. The democratic system within the NUM has been of benefit to the country. Last winter, and the winter before, rank and file miners rejected executive advice for industrial action. I wish that ASLEF had had a similar system. It might have avoided the hardship that has been caused during the past few months to other workers who rely on the services of British Rail. We have waited for reform for many years. In the absence of progress, there comes a time when Parliament must act. I hope that it will do so before long.
I hope that we shall hear the SDP view. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) has suggested that it is wrong to play legislative ping-pong with industrial relations, with Labour and Conservative Government

srepealing each other's measures. I should much prefer the two parties to reach a consensus on what is right for industrial relations law and for that situation to prevail over many years, thus enabling British industry and society to benefit from the continuity that would result. How can that consensus be established so long as the Labour Party is locked so closely with the trade union bureaucracy and so long as the trade union attitude to these matters is so reactionary that it will never look at any constructive reform of the law? If there were changes in that situation, we could work for consensus. We cannot have consensus when an attitude that is so utterly wrong is taken by the so-called Labour movement.
It is our duty to legislate to improve these matters step by step. It is for the electorate to avoid the disaster of another Labour Government who would get us back into such a mess again. I say that in the knowledge that recently the TUC and the Labour Party leadership, through their liaison committee, have once more been discussing how another Labour Government—if there ever were another Labour Government—would repeal these measures and put something in their place. I speak, sadly, with experience of membership of the liaison committee many years ago. I can explain the procedure. It is for the Labour Party leadership to ask the TUC what it wants and for the Labour leadership to do exactly what the TUC wants, not simply in general terms, but detail by detail, without any original thinking of its own.
The question has been asked whether the Bill positively helps industrial relations. I agree with those hon. Members who say that no piece of legislation can solve the problems of industrial relations. It is a matter of human relations, depending upon thousands of people in thousands of different situations on the management side and on the union side. I believe, however, that the Bill helps in two ways. The practical effect of the closed shop provisions will be to reduce the number of workers who are imprisoned in a closed shop situation. The main reason for that reform, as argued by the Minister today and by many hon. Members in the past, is to be found in terms of human freedom.
I also submit, as I attempted to do yesterday when skating on thin ice in terms of the rules of order on an amendment, that voluntary trade unionism is better trade unionism and that it can lead to better industrial relations at the workplace. If a trade union can say that it has voluntarily recruited the majority of people in a workplace, and can say to management that it is still enrolling new recruits who are joining of their own free will because they believe in what the union is doing, that carries more authority and represents a much more constructive situation than if people simply sign on with the union because they have to and are then taken for granted by shop stewards or trade union officials.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Union membership in the teaching profession has been voluntary, although there has recently been more pressure upon people to join. Those teachers who have voluntarily joined unions of their choice are often more inclined to take part in union discussions and affairs than is the case when union membership is compulsory. That seems a positive aspect of what my right hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend's comment. I had some experience, as a Minister in the


Department of Education and Science, of dealing with teachers' unions. It was sometimes a frustrating experience. Sometimes one got angry with them. However, they are lively and vigorous bodies, because they are voluntary. The fact that they compete with one another for membership means that they are all the more responsive to the views and needs of their members than would ever be the case in a closed shop situation. Management is also put on its toes when it has to deal with trade unionism of that character.
I have had working experience as a trade unionist in a closed shop and in a voluntary membership organisation. I know which I preferred as a worker, and I believe that that is generally the case. It is wrong for a closed shop to be forced on people by union labour only contracts. The pressure comes from outside the workplace. Within the workplace the employers and the workers, whether or not they are members of unions, may have worked out their own arrangements to their mutual satisfaction. It is wrong that that should be changed at the dictate of an outside body.
I believe that the Bill will improve industrial relations because of clauses 13 to 16, which provide for unions to be made liable for action in tort. I disagree with the assessment of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. The practical effect will surely be that fewer industrial disputes will spread outwards to affect firms and workplaces that are not party to the original dispute. In other words, there will be fewer occasions on which production is stopped and fewer occasions on which workers who are not in dispute are laid off as a result of a dispute. That will mean improved industrial relations.
The Opposition have constantly argued that people will want to become martyrs and that they will deliberately invite a situation in which they are subject to actions for damages, refuse to pay the damages, are found guilty of contempt of court and go to gaol. I do not believe that Parliament would be worth its salt if we always legislated in terms of being afraid of what would happen if people were to exploit the law in such an unnatural way. If there are those who want to emulate the blessed martyrs of Pentonville, they will find ways of getting to gaol without any need to change the law. I do not believe, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield seemed to suggest, that senior union officials or senior union lay members of executives will get themselves into this sort of trouble. In the Pentonville incident it was Bernie Steer and his four friends who went to gaol; it was not Jack Jones and members of the general executive of the Transport and General Workers Union.
This is a modest and useful Bill. If the unions are sensible, they will stop all the extreme rhetoric and drop the proposals for protest strikes. They will accept the fact that they are just as much subject to the sovereignty of Parliament and the law of the land as anyone else. This Bill presents a challenge to the unions, which at present have a credibility problem. It is credibility that is affected by the callous strike today of Health Service workers at the expense of the sick, credibility that is affected by the fact that ASLEF continues to rat on its obligations to improve productivity on British Rail, and credibility that is affected by the decision of the biggest union in the Civil Service to elect a Trotskyist as its president and a Communist as its vice-president. It is they who have the problem. The future of trade unionism in Britain is not threatened by the

Bill or by the Government. It is threatened by the continuing failure of the unions to put right their internal problems.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) said that hon. Members are reaching the end of a long and weary process—a process that has clearly demonstrated the stupidity of not properly timetabling Bills. That is, however, an issue that the House can debate on another occasion.
There are certainly those who have huffed and puffed to try to work up some great euphoria of opposition to the Bill. The trouble is that much of that opposition is a little synthetic. I pay tribute to the efforts of Labour Members on the Standing Committee, but the sittings were hardly as bloodcurdling as we had been led to believe would be the case.

Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman was not there all the time.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman says I was not there all the time. That may be true, but I do not think that I missed much on the occasions when I was not present. What is certain is that there were occasions when Labour Members could have been present, but were not, even after the guillotine motion had been passed. It was they who approached the Government to finish at 7.30 pm instead of 11 pm on two successive evenings. That is how bloodcurdling was the opposition of Labour Members to the Bill. Last night they could have kept the House voting on Government amendments until 2 am or 3 am to show their opposition to the Bill, which I understand happened on the Employment Bill 1971. This Labour Opposition have done none of that, which is why I describe them as a little synthetic. I do not object to the fact that the Opposition are synthetic. I simple draw attention to it.
We now have veiled threats from outside the House about what will happen to the Bill if and when it becomes law. In the past 24 hours the leadership of ASLEF, not being satisfied with the great damage that it has already done to the future of British Rail, has said that it wishes to disrupt it further. That is because of the gross misunderstanding that has been worked up about the Bill.
I said in an intervention on Report that I had heard no objections to the Bill at meetings that I had addressed or at the doors on which I had knocked during the past few weeks. As a Member of Parliament who receives about 300 to 400 letters every week, I have received about six to eight letters about the Bill from people who are worked up about it or who seem to object to the fact that I voted in favour of it. The great euphoria about opposition to the Bill is not justified and it does not represent the views of the people.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the hon. Member tell us whether one of those letters was from the national council of the Liberal Party, which takes a rather different view from him?

Mr. Smith: I did not receive a letter from the national council, but the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it takes a different view from me. That shows that some of us are not puppets of our party, but can make up our minds and act accordingly.
There is not as much in the Bill to which one can object as some hon. Members would have us believe. I suspect


that the shouting about the Bill by trade union leaders has more to do with party politics than with trade unionism and industrial relations. It is significant that the shouting is done by union leaders rather than by trade unionists.
What does the Bill do? First, it gives individuals who are sacked for refusing to belong to a trade union the right to claim damages for unfair dismissal. It does not make the closed shop illegal. I wish that it did. It does not force a trade union to have a ballot about a closed shop, but says that if an individual is sacked when there has not been a ballot, a claim for unfair dismissal is established. It does not say that if there is a ballot and the necessary percentages are not obtained the closed shop is illegal and cannot continue. The object of the ballot is merely to establish the right to a claim for unfair dismissal. I cannot understand why people become so worked up about that.
The Bill also provides that one cannot stop a company from obtaining work solely—I repeat the word "solely"—on the ground that not all of its employees belong to a trade union. There is nothing to become worked up about in that. The Bill also provides that trade unions, like everyone else, must be answerable in law for their actions.
Those are the three principal points of the Bill, and I cannot understand the opposition to the measure. It does not make trade union membership illegal or take away from trade unionists the right to strike against their employer. I do not understand why it is supposed to be a trade-union-bashing Bill. I interpret it as a Bill that offers protection to the individual against a large movement in Britain—the trade union movement—which, if it is not controlled, can injure seriously the right of an individual to work and to continue to work.
I said on Second Reading that the Bill does not deal with industrial relations. Matters such as industrial democracy and worker participation are much more relevant to industrial relations than the Bill. However, the measure is before us and we must judge it on its merits.
It follows from what I have said that I do not find the Bill objectionable in principle. I should have supported some changes, especially on the size of penalties, but in principle it is acceptable. That is why I shall vote for its Third Reading.
There is an alternative to the way in which I act on Third Reading. I could have considered abstention and, clearly, in the present political circumstances I gave a little thought to that. However, I am not an abstainer by nature, certainly not in political matters. This issue is much too important for one not to express a definite view either for or against it. The only interest that I am here to protect is that of the individual, and I cannot protect that interest by abstaining tonight. I believe that I shall help that interest by voting for the Bill.
That is what I intend to do and it is what I have advised my right hon. and hon. Friends to do. Whether they take that advice is a matter for them. I see colleagues as individuals rather than as Lobby fodder, but if, as I believe, they are interested in the liberty of the individual, his right to run his life as he wishes and to belong to that which he chooses and nothing more, my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby this evening to support the Third Reading of the Bill. I have no reason to believe that they will not do so.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I listened carefully to what he said because throughout the passage of the Bill he has been extremely persuasive in supporting the cause of the individual. I wish only that his colleagues in the SDP had been as united and determined to do the same. Their speeches and their attitude to time—I include the Opposition Front Bench—reminded me of the words of Henry V before the battle of Agincourt. When he said:
That he which hath no stomach to this fight, let him depart; his passport shall be made, and crowns for convoy put into his purse".
That is precisely what has happened to the SDP. Its members will abstain—the privilege of the eunuch through the ages. The official Opposition, on two evenings when we should have been debating until late at night, had crowns for convoy put into their purse, their passport was made and they departed early, rather than fight the Bill through. That will stand on their record.
The Opposition has been largely synthetic and the same goes for the TUC. It issued the great campaign pack against the Bill—"Fight Tebbit's Law". The best thing that it can do with the campaign pack is to hire an aeroplane and drop it on Buenos Aires. It would frighten the Argentines if this red and white document, several pounds in weight, came hurtling through the air, but it will not frighten or impress any British trade unionists. No working trade unionist in Britain, who is not an active trade union official, opposes the Bill. He does not care about it.

Mr. Allen McKay: rose—

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman can make his speech later. I wish to continue with mine.
There is no serious shop floor opposition to the Bill—quite the opposite. The TUC is trying to stir up a synthetic campaign, full of sound and fury, that is signifying nothing. It will quickly disappear.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the cleverness of the Bill. However, there is one significant omission that my right hon. Friend touched on earlier. There is no requirement in the Bill for trade unions to extend secret ballots. I can understand why the Government are hesitant, even reluctant, to require trade unions to change their rule books. Clearly that requires a great deal of thought and it is most important that we should get the formula right. Therefore, it is disgraceful that the two new clauses that were on the Order Paper for debate between 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock last night could not be considered. Although the official Opposition agreed through the Business Committee that there should be an hour for the debate, they were so frightened of having any discussion about more democracy in the trade union movement that they abused the procedures of the House and forced a series of votes on technical matters so that a debate could not take place.
There is no doubt that that was an abuse of the procedures of the House. Why are the official Opposition so worried about a discussion on more democracy in the trade union movement? Is pressure put on some members of the Opposition by some of their friends among the union leaders? I refer to such lifers as Clive Jenkins, who was appointed for life in ASTMS, Moss Evans, who was elected for life, Alan Fisher of NUPE, who was appointed for life, and Geoffrey Drain of NALGO. Are the


Opposition so swayed by these influential men that they want to protect them from having to stand for election? If that is not the reason—

Mr. Allen McKay: rose—

Mr. Renton: I shall not give way. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an active member of APEX, which is my union too, and I hope he will have an opportunity later to make his speech.
If the Opposition are not frightened, why do they constantly resist a debate on more democracy and more secret ballots in the union movement? Surely it is abundantly plain that the spread of balloting in the movement is in the public interest. It must equally be true that it is in the interests of the trade union movement that union leaders should be representative of those they claim to speak for.
The events of the past week in the Civil and Public Servants Association should make the Labour Party welcome the spread of ballots for the regular election of national union officials. Kevin Roddy, a member of Militant Tendency, was elected as president of the CPSA. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) grins at the mention of his name, but as a moderate member of the Labour Party and opposed to Militant Tendency he should be very worried about Kevin Roddy's election.
Kevin Roddy was elected president of that important union despite the fact that there were only 100 members of the Militant Tendency in the CPSA. He was elected with only 23,000 votes out of 208,000. He achieved that because of the mechanism of the branch block vote. If only 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of the membership turn up—a normal figure—none the less the total membership of the branch is deemed to have voted for the candidate decided on at the meeting. Clearly that is an undemocratic procedure. It leads to results, as in the election of Kevin Roddy, that do not reflect the wishes of the membership.
Recently, Frank Chapple, under the Daily Express headline "Chapple spills the Beans", pointed out that delegates from his union were regularly elected at meetings where only 1½ per cent. of those entitled to attend bothered to do so. Surely it is in the interests of Labour Members who oppose the Militant Tendency to encourage more secret ballots within the trade union movement. That was the purpose of new clause 1 that should have been debated last night.
I do not suggest that the Government should force unions to hold secret ballots, but if after a period unions have not changed their rules to allow regular secret ballots, a group of trade unionists within that union—large enough to put off the frivolous and small enough to be achievable—should be able to ask the Government of the day to change the union rule book for them. That would be a major, and by far and away the most important, step in changing the trade union movement.
As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said earlier, what the trade union movement has to worry about now is not this legislation but the spread of extremism within the movement that is not representative of the majority of trade unionists.
Many hon. Members know that this call for a mandatory right for groups of trade unionists to be able to ask for secret ballots was made by Conservative Trade Unionists. I am proud to be president of that organisation. It is a change for which it has campaigned, supported by

all its branches, for many years. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us that shortly, either before the next general election or when the Conservative Party has been re-elected, the Government will commit themselves to bringing forward legislation to enable changes to be made in the rule books of those unions that have not yet made the change, but only when union members ask for it.
Nothing would change the unions more than if officials who are at present elected or appointed for life had to stand for regular election at least every five years. We have to in this House, so why should not leaders of the trade unions do so? Regular secret ballots for the election of national officials will be more fundamental in reforming the trade union movement than anything in the Bill. They will drag the trade unions, screaming in some cases, pleased in others, into the last decade of this century.

6 pm

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who is president of the Conservative Trade Unionists, did not do a bad job of trade union bashing in most of his speech. I could not follow his logic in the remainder of it. Trade unions have their own rules. If they want to alter them or the method by which they adopt their officers, they can do so by passing a resolution at the annual conference. The hon. Gentleman's argument is irrelevant, because the opportunity already exists for trade union members who wish to use it.
I shall be brief, because we do not have much time and other hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore, I shall curtail many of my remarks. I shall also generalise, because many of the specific points that I wished to make have already been referred to. It is not my habit to make cheap political points. They serve no useful purpose, but the debates of the past two days have shown that many hon. Members feel that the more that they can deceive the public and kid them, the more successful they will be.
The Government are making a big mistake by introducing the Bill. I think that I know why they have been pushed into doing so. After the 1978 winter of strife—I did not condone union actions that resulted in people having to bury their own dead—the Prime Minister went on television, held her fist in the air and said "By God, I will take them on." That attitude has resulted in the presentation of the Bill.
The Bill is designed to stop the excesses of those engaged in purely political activities and to prevent them from using their power base to achieve political objectives, but it is a punitive legal framework to impose on the trade union movement and it includes extreme financial penalties for unions, officers and individual members. If Conservative Members do not agree, let them tell me why the Government have not taken similar punitive measures against employers and their federations.
Clauses 13 to 16 are the heart of the Bill and raise fundamental issues relating to industrial relations. I shall not go into detail, but I regret that the Gennard report has not been available. The House should have had the opportunity to see that report before passing the Bill.
Clause 2 on the closed shop can have only a disruptive effect on the trade union movement. It will create nothing but chaos in the mining industry, in which I spent all my working life before being elected to the House. A closed shop could not work in the mining industry. The activities


and policies of the NUM are a model to other trade unions, and the closed shop could not work without creating tremendous friction among the workers in that industry.
I can speak with some knowledge, because half of my career in the industry was spent at the coal face and the other half as a personnel manager. Before being elected to the House I was personnel manager at a large pit, and I know that the closed shop could not work in the mining industry without creating chaos.

Mr. Allen McKay: My hon. Friend says that the closed shop would not work in the mining industry. I think that he meant to put it the other way round and say that the industry could not work without the closed shop.

Mr. Lofthouse: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I apologise if I was not communicating my views clearly.

Mr. Tebbitt: We understood the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lofthouse: I was always taught that the art of good English is to communicate. As long as hon. Members understood me, I made my point.
The Secretary of State said yesterday that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) did not understand clause 13. If that is true of my hon. Friend—and I do not say that it is—it may be true of me. The clause deals with trade disputes that are authorised or endorsed by a responsible person.
I do not understand how the clause can be operated without many court hearings. Which officers of a union will be responsible for trade disputes? Nowhere can I see how a local official, who is not employed by the union can be deemed to be responsible for calling a strike. Who will fine him? Without long court hearings, how will anyone be able to decide who is responsible? It will be extremely difficult.
Clause 17 was deleted yesterday, without debate, and I understand that new clause 25, which was approved without a debate, replaces it.
I oppose the Bill, not because of political dogma, but because I believe that it is not needed. We should not pass legislation that will create problems. The Bill is already doing that, as was made clear by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex when he held up the poster referring to "Tebbit's Law". The Bill is creating such problems throughout our society. It will provoke unnecessary bitterness.
With regard to the matters that would have been covered by clause 17, where continuance of service is taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing redundancy payments, I hope that the Minister will consider introducing a clause to protect those unfortunate people who have been caught by the provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. I am sure that when that measure went through the House it was not intended that it should catch them.
In the mining industry there are men who, unfortunately, have suffered severe injuries. By agreement between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, for administrative purposes such men are taken off the colliery books after 18 months. Eventually, some of them return to work with arms and legs missing; some of them lose both legs. If at some later time they are made redundant, the time that they have spent off work as

a result of their severe injuries is taken into consideration and the years of qualification are calculated only from the day on which they re-started work.
When a man has worked for about 40 years in the mining industry and loses a leg, he should not be jeopardised because, through no fault of his own, by agreement between his trade union and his employers, he is taken off the books. His redundancy payment should not be jeopardised as a result of that action.
If the Secretary of State wishes to change his image as a hard-hearted hatchet man, let him start with the miners and show that he is concerned with cases of the nature that I have mentioned. Let him introduce the appropriate legislation, through the Bill, in another place.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) down many of the paths that he took, but I particularly challenge him when he says that the Bill is not needed. I shall try to show why I think that it is very much needed and why I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing it.
I enjoyed the Minister's opening speech, but I was sorry to have missed some of the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a compassionate man, and I cannot understand how he is able to hold the views that he does on trade union matters.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) made a telling point when he said that voluntary union membership is the best. It certainly is the best. I have had long experience of it. Voluntary union membership induces, encourages and sustains participation of a high order on the part of the members. There is a large attendance of members at meetings. Members who belong to unions voluntarily are much more inclined to speak up and put their points of view than are members of closed shops. A much greater percentage of such members take part in union elections.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) quoted example after example of unions in which only 1½ per cent. of the membership took part in important national elections. That needs to be put right, as do many other matters, particularly those concerning the closed shop.
I speak as the president of the Conservative teachers trade union organisation, and I am very proud of that fine body of admirable men and women. They, like me, feel that the two values that best sum up the British approach to life are tolerance and freedom. A belief in individual freedom of action under the law, and the tolerance of individual differences, have pervaded our nation's history. We have fought against tyranny in two world wars. We call for human rights to be allowed in countries where they are denied—currently in countries such as Poland and Argentina, to mention but two. Yet in Britain we have endured the tyranny—it is no less—of the closed shop.
The closed shop denies human rights. It denies freedom of action to individuals. It denies the mutual respect of employees in a workplace, because it imposes a trade union tyranny that is immune to the law. The closed shop takes power from the individual and diminishes him. Power must move from the State to the individual, to


enlarge the individual, if he is to have that important feeling of self-dignity that is fundamental to happiness and a sense of general satisfaction.
The Bill provides the opportunity to curtail the tyranny of the closed shop. I am delighted that the House has grasped the opportunity with both hands and in doing so has upheld the principle of the freedom of the individual employee.
The Trades Union Congress held a day of action on 14 May 1980. It was not a strike in furtherance of a trade dispute. Under the Bill, political disputes of that kind will not have the protection of the law. How can anyone honourably oppose that provision?
The Bill will give some hope to people who are victims of the abuse of trade union power, as was one of my constituents, Mr. Graham Hunter-Gray, recently. Graham did not object in principle to the closed shop as a matter of interest. He had applied to join the Transport and General Workers Union, but he objected to the TUC's day of action on 14 May 1980. He arrived for work on that day expecting to do a day's work, which his employer had led him to believe would be possible, and which the union had said would be acceptable to it. However, as a result of his arriving for work on that day his application for union membership was turned down at a special union branch meeting at which Graham—a man of only 21—had to face 26 hostile union members.
In a sense, it was like retrospective legislation. Graham was refused union membership because he had not complied with union intructions before they could even apply to him, since he was not a member of the union at the time. He was not allowed to join the union because he had not complied with union instructions. He was also censured because he happened to say that he was a Conservative voter. What sort of freedom is that? He lost his job because he was not a union member, and because the plant operated a closed shop the employer had no choice.
Graham gave notice of appeal on 5 June 1980, and on 23 July the Transport and General Workers Union regional committee wrote to him saying that it stood by the branch decision not to accept him into membership. In the same letter he was advised of his right to appeal to the independent review committee. That hearing did not take place until six months later, on 13 January 1981. Not only did Graham have to wait all that time for a final decision, but he was denied a job on the false premise that he was against the closed shop in principle.
As Graham's local Member of Parliament, I raised the matter on the Floor of the House on several occasions. We took legal advice and did everything that could be done in a democratic society, but the union was above the law. Graham had no rights and lost his job. There was no redress, even in Parliament. He was also victimised. Three other members of the TGWU who worked on 14 May 1980—the so-called day of action—were fined. The important fact is that they were members of the union. Graham says that if he had been a union member who had not followed the decision of the branch he would have expected to be disciplined—though the thought of it baffles me.
I welcome the Bill, for the sake of Graham and other victims of the closed shop. It provides a remedy for an employee who is unfairly dismissed. He or she can complain to an industrial tribunal, which may award compensation, and, if it thinks it practical, reinstatement.

The Bill goes some way towards minimising the tyranny of the closed shop and upholding the liberty of the individual.
Graham never regained his employment. He was not given membership of the TGWU. Graham finally appealed, but was entirely on his own. He had to face four professionals from the union putting its case. I was not allowed to be with him, nor was anybody else. I cannot see that that is justice. How can the House possibly stand by while that position pertains? How can right hon. and hon. Gentlemen pretend in a weak and pious way that that is justice for the individual? It is not, and the House must be the bastion of individual freedom.
Graham's case is symptomatic of the freedom that is being restored to individuals who have suffered grievously, unfairly and miserably at the hands, of tyrannical union leaders and when large numbers of union members join in an aggressive, unfair and inconsiderate way to deny a man his right to employment and freedom. We have always fought for those principles and I shall continue to do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I understand that the Front Bench speeches will start at 6.30 pm.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Most legislation is, like the curate's egg, bad in parts. Having looked through this Bill, I cannot find any good parts. It is a thoroughly bad Bill. I should like to remind the Minister that the trade union movement was born in this country and has many millions of members. It is a reputable and patriotic body of people. It is not an alien institution to be attacked. I should have thought that any Government would seek the co-operation of the trade union movement and not its hostility.
We were told that industrial relations were improving. The last year for which we have the figures shows 4 million days lost in strikes, 371 million days lost through sickness and 780 million days lost through unemployment. The Government seem determined to enter into conflict with the trade union movement. My impression is that the Minister regards trade unions as does General Galtieri. He does not approve of them. I understand that there is more legislation to come and that the step-by-step approach is to continue to squeeze trade unionism gradually out of our society, and to leave everything to the workings of crude market forces. The Government want a union-free society.
The Minister's ire has been aroused by 100 per cent. union shops. He wants to neuter them. In Committee the Minister of State referred to what he called the Strathclyde research. We pricked our ears up because that interested us. We discovered that it was Professor Gennard's research, which was instituted in 1978. It is thorough and reputable research on the closed shop. The right hon. Gentleman said that the fieldwork had been done but that he had not seen the results. I find it almost impossible to believe—of course I believe what he says—that he has not had a peep at it. It is almost a dereliction of duty for him not to have looked at the research. There was a leak in The Observer which said that only 12 per cent. of managers thought that the closed shop encouraged inefficiencies while 53 per cent. believed that they received benefits from the system.
Why is there such a hurry to introduce legislation? The Under-Secretary of State for Employment told us yesterday, quite wrongly, that since 1980 there had been an increase in the number of victims of the closed shop. In fact one can count the number on one hand. Why legislate and then get the facts from Professor Gennard? Why not obtain the facts first and legislate on the basis of that examination? It seems that the Minister and the Government are prejudiced and do not want to be confused by the facts.
The question of the privileges of trade unions is absurd. We know that there is no written constitution and there are no rights under it. Under common law interfering with contracts by a trade union would be a breach of the law and therefore Parliament has seen fit to give them immunities. Translated into plain English, that means rights and freedoms. Those rights and freedoms apply only in the contemplation or the furtherance of a trade dispute. What constitutes a trade dispute? The definition is being narrowed and is now imprecise. What does "wholly or mainly" mean? Nobody knows. The judges will have to interpret the law and there will be many grey areas. Quite often we shall not know what is or is not lawful.
In Committee we were told that trade union presidents and general secretaries should keep their mouths shut. Unless they repudiate actions, union funds could become liable. After the Industrial Relations Act 1971 every piece of paper that went out from my union had on it: "This document is not legally binding." In future trade unions will have to have letters printed saying: "I repudiate this action." Whenever there is action, the union will have to send out that letter. If trade union officers want to organise action, they should see the chaps and tell them what to do. They should then say, "Here is a letter repudiating your action." The Bill puts a premium on unofficial action. Unless the union officers repudiate the action, the union funds could be plundered.
Surely this is leading us in the direction of anarchy. Under the 1980 Act, the employer was given his remedy, but it was up to him to decide whether to use it. Now third parties can trigger this mechanism, and in that way employers will lose control of their own industrial relations.
Then we have these enormous fines of £250,000. The unions will not pay these huge fines. They will not consider them just.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): Rubbish.

Mr. Leighton: I tell the hon. and learned Gentleman to wait and see. We shall soon see who has been talking the rubbish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Harold Walker.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are the safeguard of the interests of Back Benchers. I sat through a great deal of yesterday's Report stage. I have sat through a great deal of today's proceedings hoping to make my contribution as the Bill passed through the House of Commons.
May I ask why all those right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee and who made major contributions to yesterday's Report stage appear to

be given precedence over those hon. Members who wish to contribute once only to the passage of a vital Bill? I look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to safeguard the interests of hon. Members who believe that they have important contributions to make to this Third Reading debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is making a serious reflection upon my predecessors in the Chair, because he knows that I took the Chair only about three minutes ago.
Many hon. Members wished to take part in this short debate. The hon. Gentleman has been unlucky today. He may be lucky on another occasion. Mr. Harold Walker.

Mr. Harold Walker: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I point out that I had not sought to catch your eye when the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) rose on his point of order? My view was that since the debate was being curtailed for obvious and very proper reasons, it would have been sensible for the two Front Bench spokesmen to act with some restraint and give Back Benchers a greater opportunity to participate. In the circumstances I felt that it would not have been unreasonable if I had taken 10 minutes of the time available on behalf of the official Opposition and if the Secretary of State had taken an equal amount of time so that we could still have the Division at 7 o'clock. However, I understand that the Secretary of State insisted to the Chair that I should be called at half-past six and that he expected to have 20 minutes in which to reply on behalf of the Government.
The Secretary of State may ride roughshod over the trade union movement, but it is intolerable if he thinks that he can do the same to the House of Commons. I shudder to think what tactics that man would adopt if he had the opportunity. The trade union movement can see now what kind of Secretary of State is responsible for the legislation that will govern the conduct of our industrial relations until the next general election.

Mr. Waddington: Cool it,

Mr. Walker: The Under-Secretary of State advises me to cool it. He is the hon. Member who ought to learn a little about cooling matters, bearing in mind the abusive venom that he heaped on the trade union movement in the Standing Committee and elsewhere, denouncing trade unions for their villainy, and so on. The House of Commons must watch itself carefully when it allows itself to be pushed round by Ministers of any Government—

Mr. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it a fact that the House was pushed around by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and others of his right hon. and hon. Friends last night when we were unable to debate new clauses, which the Opposition had agreed should be debated for an hour, because the right hon. Gentleman insisted on voting on a great many purely technical amendments? It was the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends who pushed the House around.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Member that that is in no sense a point of order.

Mr. Harold Walker: rose—

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) that we are debating this Third Reading under a guillotine.

Mr. Bill Walker: I understand that, but I am sure that the Chair will appreciate that my point of order is relative to time. The time allocated for the Bill in Committee was not used fully. Therefore I suggest that it is irresponsible of any Opposition Member to suggest that we have not used the time available properly.

Mr. Harold Walker: I shall take note of the interruptions and assume that I am entitled to injury time. What is more, if the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) had contained himself for a minute he would have found that I wanted to refer to the events of last night—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I am subjected to sedentary interruptions, especially from hon. Members who have taken no part in our proceedings, matters become rather difficult.
I wanted to deal with the serious point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex about the new clauses which both sides of the House had tabled. I ask him to remember that the official Opposition had tabled a string of new clauses which were neither called nor likely to be called. We had equal reason to be resentful because important new clauses much cherished by us had no opportunity for debate and decision. I make no complaint about the Chair. I say simply that the reason was that Government supporters voted in favour of guillotining the Bill. In the circumstances, it is a bit much for them to vote for curtailment of debate and then to complain that they have been unable to pre-empt some of the limited time available.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) failed to persuade his own Government to include in the Bill the matters of which he is now complaining. He can hardly blame the Opposition for the fact that they were not in the original Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not attempt to discuss new clauses which were or might have been considered yesterday. This is the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Harold Walker: I make no complaint that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex took the opportunity today to make the speech that probably he would have made yesterday if he had been given the chance. But I put this serious point to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there is a difficulty about determining the priority in which new clauses are considered on Report. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that it is the pure chance timing of submission or the random chance selection of the printer which determines the order in which new clauses shall be considered.
I am not sure that that is good enough, and it may be that if we could devise a more sensible system which took account of the merits of new clauses, we would avoid the position that we reached last evening.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time, and he knows the procedure of the House much better than I do, but the order in which new clauses are selected for debate is not a haphazard process

at all. It is decided by Mr. Speaker's Committee. It is that Committee which decides the order in which new clauses shall be considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say again to the House that we are now on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Harold Walker: I may be quite wrong in my assumptions about the way in which new clauses are selected, and I accept your reproach, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I turn immediately to the very serious point made by the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), and I speak in this matter only for myself. The right hon. Gentleman repeated his challenge to the Opposition about whether we believed that people should observe the law passed by Parliament. In my view every hon. Member ought to be here because he believes in the rule of law and in parliamentary democracy. We ought to expect that if the law bears heavily on certain groups or individuals, their way to seek redress is to have a change of Parliament which will enable the election of a Government more sympathetic to their point of view. That is the was that we all hope and assume that our system of parliamentary democracy works.
That is all very well as a theory, and I endorse it. But is the right hon. Member for Daventry really saying that there are not people in his own party, for example, who do not seek to frustrate or evade the laws that we pass? We hear of people with funds in the Cayman Islands or in Swiss numbered accounts. There is a range of tax evasions and avoidance that is carried on. All that is held to be perfectly legitimate. Some right hon. and hon. Members who support the present Government argue that if Parliament imposes certain laws, they have a legitimate right to employ professional expert advisers to tell them how to evade or cheat those laws.

Mr. Greenway: Name them.

Mr. Leighton: Vestey.

Mr. Greenway: He is not an hon. Member.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that no one should ever try to resist what is manifestly and patently an unjust law? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if the majority discriminate against a minority, there should be no resistance? Does he suggest that if the two-eyed people passed a law that bore heavily on one-eyed people, we should complain when the one-eyed people said, "We are not having it"? Throughout our history and that of other countries are there not examples of people who have defied the law and who are now regarded as heroes because of their actions? Those who have deliberately chosen the consequences having been given the choice of observing the law or of accepting he consequences of their defiance. In Britain, when we pass a law, we do not say that a person must not break it or else he may face the death penalty, for example. We say that he must be prepared to accept the consequences. Even the Prime Minister is among those who have endorsed and applauded the trade unionists who have defied their lawfully elected Government in Poland. I may be wrong. If so, I must apologise.

Mr. Prentice: When the Bill is on the statute book, will the right hon. Gentleman condemn any official or unofficial trade union action in defiance of it?

Mr. Walker: Perhaps I may complete my point about Poland.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Answer.

Mr. Walker: I shall make my speech in my own way. The less time I have as a result of interruptions the less time will be available to the Secretary of State. It is the Secretary of State's speech that is being eaten into and interrupted. The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), who, to the best of my knowledge, has not been here throughout the proceedings, might bear that in mind.

Mr. Murphy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is inaccurate and I should like him to withdraw his allegation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Walker: I said "to the best of my recollection". It remains the same. I share others' abhorrence of the political system that elects the Polish Government. I understand that the Prime Minister has endorsed the actions of Solidarity, which is opposed to its own Government. The right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) cannot have it both ways. I speak only for myself. The right hon. Member for Daventry asked whether I will condemn union action. I must wait and see. Neither he nor any other right hon. or hon. Member can say categorically what their view will be, as it is based upon a hypothetical circumstance.
The Secretary of State repeated the extraordinary assertion that the Bill is an employment Bill. The title is inappropriate. I do not know what it has to do with employment.

Mr. Dickens: It deals with workers' rights.

Mr. Walker: I can see only one additional job—that of the assessor who will disburse the bribes to non-unionists as provided by clause 1. Moreover, it creates much extra work for lawyers. To assert that one of the purposes of the Bill is to help to produce a balanced labour market is extraordinary in the light of the Government's record on unemployment. They have created well over 3 million unemployed. They have dismantled the industrial training boards and damaged the existing trading system. There have been reports of a threat to close jobcentres or for them to be relocated in back streets. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or any hon. Member believes that the Bill is seriously intended to help the labour market, you will believe anything.
It is undeniable that the closed shop often entails some loss of individual liberty. Conservative Members nod at that. It is understandable. They are right to do so. It must be borne in mind, however, that every time we pass an Act, we curtail someone's liberty. This Bill curtails many people's liberty. The Secretary of State is proud of that. He is proud to curtail the rights of trade unions and trade unionists. There are both collective and individual rights. We must be prepared to balance the interests of the one against the other. In the light of the difficulties that have arisen from the attempts to impose a statutory framework on the closed shop, I prefer the much more practical approach of leaving it to the parties in industry mutually to agree the best way of conducting the matter.
Despite what I said about injury time, I do not want to eat into the time available for the Secretary of State. I shall deal with what may seem a small point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr.

Cryer)—that of safety. The Secretary of State has shown himself to be anxious lest people suggest that his measure will affect safety. He has referred to safety on ships, but it applies elsewhere.
One of the most important recent developments in industrial occupational health and safety has been the provision of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act which provides for the appointment of work people safety representatives and statutory safety committees. They are both linked to the trade unions involved and recognised by the employer. They were accepted by the House and fully explained in 1974. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley was absolutely right to raise the issue.
I have spoken rather longer than I intended mainly because of interruptions. I have been dismayed by the way in which the Secretary of State and his team have handled the matter. They have completely disregarded the basis upon which, until the appearance of this Bill it was assumed that industrial relations were established. They have disregarded collective bargaining between strong trade unions and employers or employers' associations. I have also been dismayed by the style with which they have conducted themselves. They have made absolutely clear at every twist and turn their dislike, amounting to hatred, for the trade union movement, trade unions and trade unionists.
The Minister of State shakes his head. I recall what he said today. He called trade unions tigers of persecution and examples of ruthless ideological motivation. If there is any ruthless ideological motivation, it is seated on those Benches now. That is the kind of language that is employed. In Standing Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the villainy of the trade unions. Such comments demonstrate the Government's attitude to the trade union movement. It is no use the Secretary of State shaking his watch or knocking it. He will not push me around even though he may try to push the House about.
I look forward to the day when the Labour Party sits on the Government Benches. We will cleanse the statute book of the Bill, its predecessor, any successor that may arrive and of all the attacks on workers' rights that the Tories have perpetrated since they took office. We will replace them with more constructive and beneficial legislation that recognises the rights and role of workers in our modern society.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): One of the reasons why the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) will never sit on this side again is that the public, as much as his colleagues, have no time for a man who breaks an undertaking.

Mr. Harold Walker: rose—

Mr. Tebbit: I would be trespassing beyond the limits of veracity if I said that any remarkable, or unremarkable, new points—

Mr. Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that if a right hon. or hon. Gentleman makes a serious allegation against another hon. Member he must substantiate or withdraw it? As I made clear, there was no undertaking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Serious allegations are frequently made in this place.

Mr. Tebbit: So are bargains and they are usually kept. Whatever efforts have been made to generate passion, no one has been able to generate even synthetic passion until the right hon. Member for Doncaster had his tantrum which led him to express sympathy for those who break the law. Poland is no comparison. There are no free elections there.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) got it right when he said that he and trade union leaders favour legislation that takes away the common law rights of ordinary working people and gives the power and the privilege to the TUC and the leadership of the unions. He said that he and the TUC would always oppose legislation that trimmed that power and privilege and returned common law rights to ordinary people. The right hon. Gentleman may have used slightly different terms, but that was the meaning of the early part of his speech.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the attitude of the Engineering Employers Federation. I think that he may have been misled by selective quotation in the press. Dr. McFarlane, the director of the EEF, was so concerned about this that it may help if I quote what he said on "The World at One" about it. The interview included the following:
Mr. Jones: How far would you say that you are going then in supporting Mr. Tebbit in view of your concern over the closed shop?
Dr. McFarlane: I would say that everything in Mr. Tebbit's Bill are things that we as a Federation have asked for to be implemented at some stage. Where we perhaps have a difference with the Secretary of State is that his order of priority is not the same as ours.
That is the extent of the difference between myself and the EEF. I have overwhelming support from the EEF, the CBI and all the other employers' organisations.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman also misled himself about the effect of changes in the law affecting the definition of lawful industrial disputes. A worker in dispute with his employer about whether he or another worker did a particular job would not on that ground be outside the protection of the law. A worker in dispute with his employer about redundancy would not be outside the protection of the law on the ground that his redundancy might arise out of a Government decision on, for example, public expenditure. I have made that plain before, as have my hon. and right hon. Friends, but the right hon. Gentleman insists on not understanding.
The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) reflected his lifelong experience in these matters and I would scarcely differ from a word of it.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State outlined the provisions of the Bill once again, so in view of the short time that the right hon. Member for Doncaster has left me I shall not go over the provisions again.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) made the same speech as he made yesterday, even introducing the same addled curate's egg. His only new point was that General Galtieri does not like trade unions. I hope that he will tell that to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), as it might change the right hon. Gentleman's attitude of support for that regime.
The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) referred to the case of a miner's loss of the right to redundancy pay. I know that he has written to the Department about that case. It raises serious issues and I

shall examine it to see whether we can help. As he knows, however, there are more complications than he could explain in an understandably short speech.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield asked about the coming into force of the Bill. I repeat that clause 1 and schedule 1 will come into effect immediately upon enactment. As I have made perfectly plain, the closed shop balloting provisions will come into force one or two years after enactment, when I have considered how much notice might be required to ensure that all unions and employers have had time to make suitable arrangements. The remainder of the provisions will come into effect without abnormal delay. That is what I said in Committee and again yesterday. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked about future legislation, and in particular about legislation on ballots. Unions are powerful bodies both in relation to the community at large and in relation to individuals. In many cases, their balloting procedures for senior offices are highly unsatisfactory. Time and again, there are challenges in the courts alleging ballot-rigging and similar malpractice. Sometimes people are elected for life on tiny and perhaps unrepresentative minorities in ballots which are disputed. Public concern about these matters is growing and I am conscious of that pressure.
I still hope that unions will reform their own procedures. That is the best way to allay the well-founded public concern about this. I am ready to help the unions to do that. Money is available to finance secret postal ballots, and if more help is needed I will see whether I can give it. I hope, however, that trade unions will not try the patience of the public too far or they will build up an irresistible pressure for legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), in his account of the persecution of a man who was deprived of his job merely because he did not go along with an unlawful act by a trade union, made the case for the Bill in his speech alone. If there were no other case for the Bill, that case would be ample and sufficient. Indeed, depending on the date and circumstances, a case might even have been brought under the 1980 Act, although I rather doubt it. Certainly further reform is needed to put that beyond doubt.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) made a very fair speech about the Bill. Indeed, I go so far as to say that it was the speech of a true Liberal—not only with a capital "L", but also with a small "l". I disagree with very little of what he said, except his order of priority of legislation and his view of employee involvement where my view may be slightly different on some issues.
In the Bill, we have dealt with the abuse of industrial power, but I hope that no one will make the mistake of thinking that legislation alone can improve industrial relations. The prime responsibility falls on management and work forces, and it has been willingly accepted of late. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield fairly said that after the winter of discontent which was caused by the Labour Government's policies and did so much to bring that Government down, industrial relations have greatly improved. Last year was the best year in relation to strikes since 1941, and this year has started very well. Of course, these things are always open to change and we must keep working to improve industrial relations as they have been improved in the past three years.
We heard again about the closed shop today. The Opposition say that it is wrong to allow workers to ballot on the closed shop. We are told that the closed shop is flexible, tolerant and popular but not popular enough to risk a vote. It is flexible and tolerant and can deal with the mavericks, but if those mavericks were allowed to have their way, there would be an avalanche of dismissals by trade unions to enforce discipline against those who do not pay dues to the unions.
There has been talk of free riders, but no conclusive evidence that the unions have always brought benefits to their members. Indeed, there is often evidence to the contrary. What benefit was brought to the workers of British Leyland by the union protection that for years was given to the destructive activities of Red Robbo? Anybody who paid union dues that were used to protect that man should promptly ask for his money back.
There was talk in Committee, but not on the Floor of the House, about the case of the British Rail workers—not, I hasten to add, from the Opposition, who still have not said whether they accept the judgment of the European Court in this case or whether they want to put the law back to the position in 1976 which was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Even at this late hour, I should be happy to give the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) the opportunity to say whether or not he accepts that judgment, but he clearly does not wish to take it.
We come to the end of the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. The House has endorsed not only its principles but its detailed construction. Amendments and improvements have been made in the light of our discussions, but no credible arguments have been put forward to undermine the Bill. We were told that it would be fought line by line, but the Opposition did not always seem to have their hearts in the job. I know that they were discouraged by the majority of 106 on Second Reading. That may have been increased by the Hillhead effect, just as the Beaconsfield and Mitcham effects may erode that majority a little today. I understand that, rather than risk another three-way split, the SDP will take a positive, courageous decision to abstain en masse. The party that began by trying to get the don't-knows to join it has itself joined the don't-knows.
For whatever cause, the opposition has faded. Yesterday, our majority ranged from about 70 to about 200. Once the timetable was agreed, the time allocated was never fully used in Committee. That is because in their hearts Opposition Members know full well that, in the next Parliament, there will not be a majority to repeal the Bill—rather the reverse. It is more likely that there will be a majority for further measures—perhaps, for example, to democratise the trade unions.
The Bill is another step on the road to improving our industrial relations, making our work force more effective and our industry and commerce more successful and profitable so that they can offer more, better paid and more secure jobs. The Bill deserves its Third Reading. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friend to support it with me in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 224.

Division No. 163]
[7 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Aitken, Jonathan
Eggar, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Elliott, Sir William


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Emery, Sir Peter


Ancram, Michael
Eyre, Reginald


Arnold, Tom
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Farr, John


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Fell, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David(B'm'th E)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Banks, Robert
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Beith, A. J.
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fox, Marcus


Best, Keith
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freud, Clement


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Blaker, Peter
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Body, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, Andrew
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodlad, Alastair


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Gow, Ian


Brinton, Tim
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gray, Hamish


Brotherton, Michael
Greenway, Harry


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Grieve, Percy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Grylls, Michael


Buck, Antony
Gummer, John Selwyn


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hannam, John


Butler, Hon Adam
Haselhurst, Alan


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hastings, Stephen


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)
Hayhoe, Barney


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Chapman, Sydney
Heddle, John


Churchill, W. S.
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hicks, Robert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hill, James


Cockeram, Eric
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Cope, John
Hooson, Tom


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Peter


Corrie, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Costain, Sir Albert
Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howells, Geraint


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Crouch, David
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dover, Denshore
Jessel, Toby


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Dunlop, John
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Durant, Tony
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine






Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Lang, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Tim


Latham, Michael
RhodesJames, Robert


Lawrence, Ivan
RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lee, John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Loveridge, John
Rossi, Hugh


Luce, Richard
Rost, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Royle, Sir Anthony


McCrindle, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacKay, John (Argyll)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Scott, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, M. (N bury)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Major, John
Silvester, Fred


Marlow, Antony
Sims, Roger


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Mates, Michael
Smith, Dudley


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Mawby, Ray
Speed, Keith


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speller, Tony


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Mellor, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Miller, Hal(B'grove)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Stainton, Keith


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanley, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Moate, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Monro, Sir Hector
Stevens, Martin


Montgomery, Fergus
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Moore, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stokes, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Tapsell, Peter


Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Murphy, Christopher
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Myles, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Needham, Richard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Donald


Neubert, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Newton, Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Normanton, Tom
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nott, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Onslow, Cranley
Trippier, David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Trotter, Neville


Osborn, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Viggers, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Waddington, David


Parris, Matthew
Wakeham, John


Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Patten, John (Oxford)
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, B. (Perth)


Pawsey, James
Wall, Sir Patrick


Penhaligon, David
Waller, Gary


Percival, Sir Ian
Walters, Dennis


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Pink, R, Bonner
Warren, Kenneth


Pollock, Alexander
Watson, John


Porter, Barry
Wells, Bowen


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Wheeler, John


Prior, Rt Hon James
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitney, Raymond


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wiggin, Jerry





Wilkinson, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Williams, D. (Montgomery)



Winterton, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Young, Sir George(Acton)
Mr. Carol Mather.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Forrester, John


Adams, Allen
Foulkes, George


Allaun, Frank
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th N'w'd)


Anderson, Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey)
George, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Gourlay, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Ted


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hardy, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)r
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Heffer, Eric S.


Buchan, Norman
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ian
Homewood, William


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hooley, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Cant, R. B.
Hoyle, Douglas


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Les


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Hon Greville


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
John, Brynmor


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cook, Robin F.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Kerr, Russell


Crowther, Stan
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Neil


Cunningham, G.(Islington S)
Lambie, David


Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)
Lamborn, Harry


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James


Davidson, Arthur
Leighton, Ronald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Deakins, Eric
Litherland, Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Dixon, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Dobson, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dormand, Jack
McElhone, Frank


Dubs, Alfred
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dunnett, Jack
McKelvey, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Eadie, Alex
McMahon, Andrew


Eastham, Ken
McNamara, Kevin


Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)
McTaggart, Robert


English, Michael
McWilliam, John


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marks, Kenneth


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton.)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Ewing, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Faulds, Andrew
Martin, M (G'gow S 'burn)


Field, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Fitch, Alan
Maxton, John


Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)






Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Soley, Clive


Morton, George
Spearing, Nigel


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stallard, A. W.


Newens, Stanley
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stoddart, David


O'Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Palmer, Arthur
Straw, Jack


Park, George
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Parry, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Pendry, Tom
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tilley, John


Prescott, John
Tinn, James


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Torney, Tom


Race, Reg
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Radice, Giles
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Richardson, Jo
Watkins, David


Roberts, Albert(Normanton)
Weetch, Ken


Roberts, Allan(Bootle)
Welsh, Michael


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
White, Frank R.


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Robertson, George
Whitehead, Phillip


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Whitlock, William


Rooker, J. W.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Ryman, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Sever, John
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Woodall, Alec


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Woolmer, Kenneth


Short, Mrs Renée
Young, David (Bolton E)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)



Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tellers for the Noes:


Silverman, Julius
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Skinner, Dennis

Question Accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

7.12 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill gives legislative effect to a most important section of the Conservative manifesto. We said in that section:
For violent criminals and thugs really tough sentences are essential. But in other cases long prison terms are not always the best deterrent. So we want to see a wider variety of sentences available to the courts.
The Bill received its Second Reading with no Division. The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) who is sitting in lone splendour on the Opposition Front Bench, gave it what she described as "a cautious welcome".
In Committee, for over 60 hours, our debates were marked by the concern of everyone to grapple with the absorbing problems of crime and criminality. If there were observers who had expected stereotyped conflict across the Committee, they will not have found it. As I have cause to remember, it was a Committee of singularly independent minds.
We were greatly helped by the enormous volume of comment from outside and inside Parliament. I should like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee, and those who spoke on Report, for the care which they addressed to the Bill—even though many Labour members of the Committee are not in the Chamber today. I especially thank my hon. Friends for their support in carrying the Bill through to Third Reading. Nor can I in fairness withhold a tribute from the stamina and learning of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk).
I acknowledge that when we have to sentence someone for a criminal offence we are in a sense already too late, because someone else has already suffered a wrong through the commission of the crime, a wrong which will seldom be remedied, whatever happens to the criminal.
We are, and we ought to be, primarily interested in preventing crime, not simply in securing detection and punishment when it occurs. Whatever is needed to diminish criminality is certainly not confined to legislation, and the Government recognise that. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is now reviewing, with other colleagues in the Government, the great potential that exists, quite separately from direct police action, for local initiatives to diminish crime, to reduce the opportunities for it, and to increase awareness among the public of what can and should be done.
I agree with those who hold that it is the standards of mutual care and mutual thoughtfulness that are established in a child's home in his early life, and the discipline that he also learns at school that will deeply influence his behaviour towards others in later life. No Criminal Justice Bill can legislate for that.
There is, however, much that sensible legislation can do. We have not been divided in the House by the contention that no Criminal Justice Bill is needed. On the contrary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said on Second Reading:
We certainly do not propose to divide against the Bill, as it contains good aspects on which we believe it is possible to build.
On the same occasion my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:


We must have a sentencing structure which, while recognising that custody may be essential, secures that it be used only where necessary."—[Official Report, 20 January 1982, Vol. 16, c. 294–303.]
That has proved to be common ground.
It is natural that part 1 of the Bill is devoted to young offenders. Most crime is committed by young offenders, and it is among young people that the offending rate is highest. I do not believe that many hon. Members will distance themselves from the unequivocal assertion of principle in clause 1 that
no court shall pass a sentence of imprisonment on a person under 21 years of age … unless…no other method of dealing with him is appropriate.
We all want, if it is possible consistently with the safety
of the public, to keep young people out of custody, albeit if necessary under some well-judged restrictions on the use they can make of their time, rather than send them inside an establishment where, it must be admitted, the chances of rehabilitation are so far not encouraging.
As the result of discussion in Committee, we have been able to accede to Opposition requests to give that key-note provision a sharper focus. A new clause has therefore been inserted which will ensure no court shall pass a custodial sentence on a young offender who has not been legally represented. The Government have also accepted the principle that unless there are special reasons, which it should state, a court shall consider a social inquiry report about a young offender and his behaviour before passing a custodial sentence on him. These are but two of a number of instances where we have felt able to move in the direction generally sought by the Opposition.
But another aspect of our duty—the provision of greater discretion to sentence sternly in a proper case—has been
fulfilled by providing for the repeal of section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961. This will bear on the relatively small number of young criminals committing serious offences for whom it is appropriate not only that they should go into custody, but that they should go inside for a substantial time.
In future, it will be possible for most of such young offenders to be sent inside for terms as long as if they were over 21—at present, sentences falling between six months and three years are in most cases excluded. That was a specific manifesto commitment and it has not been controversial, although we pressed for it in vain for years when the Labour Party was in power. It was welcomed by the hon. Member for Ormskirk on behalf of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group.
Not only does the provision restore much-needed flexibility to the courts' sentencing powers; it is also a corollary of our belief that all custodial sentences for young offenders should be determinate, save for life sentences. How long a youngster stays in custody, subject to parole and remission for good conduct, should be decided by the court and known from the beginning. That policy—it is a prime mover in the Bill's machinery—was also universally approved in our discussions. On Second Reading the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that he was in favour of the amalgamation of prisons and borstal and the introduction of determinate sentences. That is what the Bill achieves. Again, I am happy to be able to report further wide areas of common ground on the Bill.
One of the most important and interesting debates that took place in Committee was about whether there should be statutory guidelines for the courts on the circumstances in which a custodial sentence should be regarded as

unavoidable. Many hon. Members believe that that can be so only when the offender appears unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties, when a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public, or when the offence is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified. Those principles are unexceptionable. We accept them and there is no judicial disagreement about their correctness. They are considerations which the courts should and do have in mind.
There is real doubt about the value, and indeed the wisdom, of principles statutorily expressed at that level of generality, which nonetheless will come to form the subject of minute textual analysis as the cases come be fore the courts. We have come to the firm conclusion, following consultations, and after careful thought, that the type of guidelines in that context which are really helpful and effective are those which in its judgments the Court of Appeal lays down.
I noted that in Standing Committee the hon. Member for Ormskirk said:
perhaps a great deal could be done if there was an authoritative statement by the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor on unnecessary use, as distinct from unnecessary length. of prison sentences."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 February 1982; c. 49–50.]
We agree.
The Court of Appeal can explain the principles, and get them across in language much less restricted and more readily grasped than the language of statute. It can use language that can call in aid examples of illustrations, delivered perhaps in judgments which are grouped together, to present a variety of circumstances, as when the Court of Appeal followed up the Upton judgment with the judgments in Bibi and other cases in 1980. Those judgments are now acknowledged to have been highly influential in the shortening of certain sentences.
I can assure the House that we can expect the Court of Appeal to take suitable and early opportunities to lay down guidelines of that nature on the proper use of the sentencing powers which the Bill will give the courts in respect of young offenders. I am certain that that is the right way to provide the safeguards against unnecessary custody for young offenders that we would all like. However, when there has to be a custodial sentence, obviously there is a strong case for a power to let it be a very short sentence. It makes sense to keep the detention centres, the regimes of which are geared to shorter sentences, but to reduce the minimum sentence to three weeks, or two weeks with remission. The Bill does that, since there is good reason to believe that the earliest weeks are the most influential.
It is now well understood by th judiciary at all levels that the shorter sentence must not be used to give a taste of custody to an offender who would at present not even be given a suspended sentence, let alone an immediate prison sentence.
There is further common ground. The stronger supervision order provided by the Bill will help to enhance the courts' confidence in supervision orders. For the first time the courts will be given power to control the regime that the supervision order will impose—of course, consulting the supervisor. For the first time they can say what the young offender shall do and what he shall refrain from doing.
We are considering amending the clause in another place so that the central principle of the curfew order


proposed in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) may be incorporated into a supervision order as a condition of it. We are advised that that would go a long way to meet many of the reservations expressed about my hon. and learned Friend's new clause which he withdrew after debate, and would be seen to be of real value. The strengthening of the supervision order in the Bill as drafted has again attracted much support.

Mr. John Carlisle: May we have an absolute commitment that an amendment will be made in another place to provide a curfew order? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the strong support for the idea, not only on the Government Benches but throughout the country? May we have an assurance that something will be in the Bill when it returns from the House of Lords?

Mr. Mayhew: We are looking closely to see whether the relevant clause can be adapted to provide for the principle of a curfew order to be incorporated in a supervision order as part and parcel of it. We are hopeful that that will be possible, but I cannot go further than that. I hope that it will be possible because I am sympathetic to the broad idea of a curfew order. We have to pay attention to the strong reservations and misgivings about enforceability if such an order were free standing and able to be imposed by itself as a penalty by the courts. I tried to make that clear in the debate on Report.
There is grave overcrowding in our prisons. That has been fed by the increased volume of serious crime. Our aim, not least in the interests of the dedicated prison service, is for prison occupancy to come down as soon as possible to a tolerable level. The prisons exist to serve the criminal justice system, not the other way round.
The demand for prison places depends on sentencing decisions taken by a properly independent judiciary. It takes into account the present overcrowding. It needs the insistent guidance of the Court of Appeal that custodial sentences should be imposed only when absolutely necessary, and then for no longer than necessary. We believe that it is right that serious offences of violence should generally lead to substantial prison sentences. They will, of course, continue to be available. Most such offences carry maximum sentences of 14 years, or even life. Fortunately, the movement towards shorter prison sentences for non-violent offences imposed by Crown courts and magistrates' courts—a movement since the lead first given by the Court of Appeal in 1980—is being maintained. Analysis of the prison population through 1981 shows that the number of offenders serving terms of over 18 months has declined significantly.
We are absolutely clear that it would be right for Governments to interfere directly with the exercise of judicial discretion only in circumstances of overriding prison emergency, and then, wherever possible, subject to prior parliamentary approval. Should exceptional circumstances arise in which it is not possible to obtain Parliament's prior approval we have provided that the power be limited so that only prisoners in the last month of their sentences can be released under it, and again, not if their convictions are for violent offences.
Naturally, however, overcrowding in the prisons has spurred us to examine every means by which changes in the law could bring relief, especially if they bring

penalogical advantages in their own right, as is the case with each of the measures that we have added to the Bill. Among those proposed, and overwhelmingly supported on all sides in Committee and accepted by us, are measures to abolish imprisonment for the offences of begging, sleeping rough and soliciting as a prostitute; a measure to remove the anomaly that time spent in custody on remand simultaneous to a detention order under the Immigration Act 1979 should not be taken into account in calculating the release date; a measure to allow a court to order the release, subject to conditions, of a person that recommended for deportation; a measure to limit the periods of imprisonment that can be imposed by the Crown court for fine default. We have undertaken to provide in another place for a legally aided appeal to the Crown court against refusal of bail and to give magistrates the power to commit to the Crown court following an initial deferment of sentence.
We have undertaken to take powers in the Bill to lower the threshold for parole, it being understood that at present we can give no commitment. In addition, the Bill will significantly relieve pressure on the prison service by another reform which is supported by the all-party penal affairs group. A remanded prisoner will need to attend court—of course, under escort—only once in four weeks, provided that he consents and is legally represented throughout, instead of every eight days as at present. However, it will still be every eight days that the courts must consider afresh whether to renew the remand.
The greatest aid to reducing the prison population is a measure for which the Advisory Council on the Penal System gave its support as long ago as 1978. I refer to partial suspension of sentences, with the first part served in prison and the second part suspended. Of this, the advisory council said:
It enables the court to pronounce a sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offence but which does not need to be fully executed;…there is a double deterrent effect, consisting of an initial period of custody, with the balance of the sentence providing postponed deterrence during the suspension period.
Later, the council added:
Partial suspension provides an opportunity for the court to impose a shorter custody than it otherwise might, knowing that on release from prison a specific contingent liability to imprisonment will remain.
I acknowledge that there was a subsequent time when there was anxiety that this sentence would be used to give a taste of prison to a person who at present would not be given a custodial sentence at all. We expressed that anxiety in the review of parole last year. Of course it is a possibility. However, our consultations among the judiciary last summer established a wide awareness of the way in which the partially suspended sentence should be used. In consequence we do not think that it will be misapplied.
The virtue of partial review is that it is discretionary. It preserves the discretion of the courts and is not a general gaol delivery taking effect after one third of every sentence has been served. That was the great defect that was perceived in our earlier suggestion for supervised release, which we said we put forward expressly for consultation.
In support of partially suspended sentences I am happy to rely on two further statements of high authority. The first is from my predessor, as Minister of State, Home Office, who had charge of the Criminal Law Bill in 1977,


the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). In considering that Bill on Report he said of the partially suspended sentence:
Fears have been expressed that the new form of sentence will lead not to a diminution in the prison population but to an expansion. [strongly believe that the opposite will be true…The courts are being given maximum flexibility in the type of sentence they may pass, and I hope that they will use it in such a way that the prison population, which is, alas, too high, will be reduced without a significant diminution of the deterrent effect.
On the same day the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said:
I, too, congratulate the Government on New Clause 4… the new clause does not have just the motive of reducing the prison population—although that is important—but is intended to give the courts greater flexibility and discretion in their sentencing processes which, in company with the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells… I hope they will use imaginatively. The courts should use the powers available in the new clause to obtain a reduction in the prison population and a far more sensible attitude to sentencing."—[Official Report, 13 July 1977; Vol. 935, c. 462, 475.]
On that occasion I put it only slightly better myself.
The Bill will contribute massively to the aptitude of our criminal justice system—

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Mayhew: —and its ability to respond with intelligence and flexibility, as well as with stern strength, to the challenge of modern crime. It rightly received its Second Reading without a Division, and that is the basis on which—responsibly amended as it has been in Committee—it deserves its Third Reading tonight.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Consideration of the Bill has provided us with a valuable opportunity to introduce changes in the sentencing and treatment of offenders, especially of young people who are appearing before the courts in increasing numbers. The changes should be designed to deter as well as to punish criminals. The Bill provides the the courts with a range of powers to deal with offenders, the aim being more flexible sentencing. However, unless each of these powers can be shown to be effective and a deterrent to further crime, it will be hard to justify them. Indeed, they could even be counter-productive. The quality of sentences is obviously more important than the range of sentences which is on offer.
The Minister has listed the areas of common ground between the Government and the opposition. We welcome the many valuable and important additions and changes in the Bill that were agreed to in Committee and on Report. These included the removal of the penalty of imprisonment for soliciting, sleeping rough and begging and involve attendance centre orders, Immigration Act prisoners, discretionary parole for short-term prisoners and bail applications by remand prisoners. However, there are major aspects of the Bill which we cannot support and which we tried unsuccessfully to alter in Committee. There were 25 sittings of the Committee, including a sittings motion that was designed to speed up the proceedings.
We are opposed to the imposition of a custodial sentence on any offender under 17 years of age, be that offender a boy or a girl. A valuable opportunity has been lost to move from custody of very young offenders towards the concept of their care and control within the

community. For young offenders over 17 an opportunity has been lost to introduce one sentence of youth custody and supervision of indeterminate length with the chance of full educative and rehabilitative treatment for all.
If a young person has to be given a custodial sentence, the emphasis should be upon opportunities for training, education and preparation for a return to life outside. The sentence of youth custody, which we proposed in Committee, would have been exactly the same for boys and girls. It would have replaced the undesirable manifestation of sex discrimination in the Bill as it stands, for which there can be no justification. Boys and girls should be liable to the same type of sentence and regimes.
Existing regimes have manifestly failed. In 1977, 83 per cent. of all youths leaving borstal training were re-convicted within two years, and 76 per cent. of youths leaving detention centres were re-convicted within two years. The continuation of detention centres, with their notoriously high reconviction rate, is one of the most retrogressive features of the Bill. There can be no justification for supporting a regime which has manifestly failed to deter or to reform.
Detention centres have become totally discredited among the people who work with young offenders. They can even alienate young offenders and make them wish to re-offend. The present short, sharp shock experiment is unnecessary. The 1970 Advisory Council on the Penal System has already reported on the effects of detention centres. We are given no justification for the Bill's endorsement of the centres and for their indefinite continuation. On the contrary, the regimes have been tried and found wanting. Only the punitive elements of the Conservative Party will welcome their perpetuation.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Lady give way'?

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: There is a punitive element.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Lady draws attention to the fact that the recidivism rate is extremely high. Perhaps the treatment was not strong enough. Does she have an alternative system to reduce the rate?

Dr. Summerskill: We do not have the results of the experiment from the Government. That is another reason why it is difficult to justify continuation of the centres. There is no evidence that the present regime is different from that examined by the advisory council.

Mr. Carlisle: Should we not give the punishment more time before judging it?

Dr. Summerskill: We are told something of the regime but not of the results. There is no difference between the present regime and that reported on by the advisory council in 1970. Everyone who has worked with offenders or examined the evidence on recidivism states that the centres are ineffective and can be counter-productive.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Can the hon. Lady advance evidence to show that the kindness alternative approach would have a recidivism rate of less than 76 per cent?

Dr. Summerskill: If Conservative Members wish to experiment, perhaps they should shut detention centres. Givern an alternative regime, people may not re-offend in such large numbers.
The size of the prison population is uppermost in the mind of anyone interested in the criminal justice system.


At Question Time tomorrow we shall hear from the Government what the latest prison population is. I understand that it is nearly 44,000. In many prisons conditions are degrading, inhuman and totally unacceptable. On Second Reading the Home Secretary stated:
We must have a sentencing structure which, while recognising that custody may be essential, secures that it be used only where necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill by reinforcing the movement towards shorter sentences, would relieve the pressures on our under-provisioned prison system. That was one of his aims. He was again advocating the use of custody only where necessary. On another occasion he stated that its use should be reserved for offenders who were a danger to society. He repeated his exhortation for shorter sentences, in which he was joined by the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor.
We were led to believe that both objectives would be promoted in the Bill, with a consequent reduction in the prison population. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) stated:
It is against the belief that the prison population should be reduced and that the Home Secretary can act to reduce it that we must judge the Bill."—[Official Report, 20 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 294–303.]
That is why I gave the Bill only a cautious welcome.
In Committee we sought to amend the Bill with the two central objectives of reducing the numbers given custodial sentences and reducing the length of sentence with a view significantly and permanently to reducing the prison population. Due to the resistance of the Government and their supporters we are left with a Bill which contains measures that could increase the prison population and the number on residential care orders and which totally lacks a major positive measure significantly and permanently to reduce the prison population.
Three measures could lead to an increase in the prison population, prison establishments and people in residential care. The major one is the introduction of the partially suspended sentence. By its nature, the measure is a shot in the dark. It might be used to give an offender a short taste of imprisonment in cases where at present courts would impose a fully suspended or non-custodial sentence. The Minister of State has described it as a "gamble". He said that only an informed guess tells him that the new power will be properly used.
The Parole Board opposed the provision. Last year its report stated that
there can be no certainty that implementing the section would achieve any reduction in the numbers in custody".
Most informed opinion agrees, and also agrees that the measure could gravely increase the number in custody. Bodies such as NACRO, the Justices Clerks Society, the probation officers and the Advisory Council on the Penal System support that view.
Is it right to gamble with the prison population? The Government may lose, which would be a disaster. The success or failure of the measure depends on the courts. If they do not respond to the exhortation, there could be a serious rise in the prison population. We need a positive measure to reduce it.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that we should let people off because our prisons are full? Is not the answer to build more prisons?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman did not suggest to the Minister that we should build more prisons. He is entitled to his view, but I do not believe that it has much support.

Mr. John Carlisle: When I tried to intervene my hon. and learned Friend looked the other way.
In my county, the court telephones the prison to discover how many places are available before deciding whether to impose a prison sentence. In her anxiety and enthusiasm to reduce the prison population, the hon. Lady may give comfort to criminals. Should she not support the Home Secretary in his keen attempt to build more prisons and increase the number of places available for people committed to prison?

Dr. Summerskill: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter. I shall be coming later to the relationship between the courts, when they sentence, and the number of prison places available. We dealt with the issue in Committee.
A further measure in the Bill that could increase the prison population is the shorter detention centre sentence. Although shorter sentences are to be welcomed both by the Government, I understand, and by the Opposition, the reduction of the minimum sentence at detention centres from three months to three weeks could mean this form of sentence, which is not used at present, being used by courts to give offenders a very short experience of a detention centre. That is the firm belief of probation officers and of many others.
In Committee, the Opposition asked that no custodial sentence should be imposed on a young offender unless he had shown himself unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or a custodial sentence was necessary for the protection of the public. The Minister agreed to consider whether some additional guidance on criteria for custodial sentences might be included in the Bill. As this did not appear on Report, I wonder whether the Minister has considered the matter, as he undertook to do, and what is the result of his consideration.

Mr. Mayhew: The great penalty of being tied to every word that one has prepared for one's speech is that one is unable to respond to a speech made immediately before one's own. I spent quite a lot of time dealing with this issue. I endeavored to explain that we had come to the firm conclusion, following consultation, that the kind of guidance that is helpful is that which comes from the judgments of the Court of Appeal, as in the case of Upton and Bibi, because the court can group cases together and illustrate their principles by references to varying circumstances. I spent quite a long time on the matter. The hon. Lady will perhaps be able to read my remarks tomorrow.

Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate that. It means that the Minister has not accepted the specific proposals made by the Opposition in Committee. We are still left with the real possibility—probation officers believe it is a certainty—that more young people will be sent to detention centres than are now being sent because of the availability of this much shorter sentence.

Mr. John Wheeler: The hon. Lady suggests that probation officers believe that the shorter sentence will result in increased use of imprisonment. That can only be a subjective opinion. Does she have any


knowledge of the views of the Magistrates' Association? Has the association suggested that it believes that its members, who impose the shorter range of sentences, will make greater use of the custodial sentence? Is there any indication from the association that its members are thinking in that way?

Dr. Summerskill: I have no such evidence from the magistrates. I can only quote the views of people who are working in the courts with offenders day by day. Much emphasis is given to the people who impose sentences. We tend not to give enough consideration to the views of people who are working with offenders and who are in court throughout their working lives. I believe that the views of probation officers are extremely important and should be seriously considered by the House.
I come now to the new care orders. The Opposition unsuccessfully opposed clause 21 in Committee. Here, again, it will mean, according to people working in this sphere that 500 to 900 additional children a year will be kept in community homes away from their own homes at an estimated cost of £6 million. It has been said that the power in clause 21 could represent simply another non-custodial provision. But the probation officers and the young people involved frequently disagreed with this interpretation. They see it as another form of custodial sentence involving loss of liberty. If that argument does not persuade Conservative Members, I hope that the £6 million will. There is evidence that recidivism among children committed to care orders is over 50 per cent.
I come now to the measures proposed by the Opposition which would have the effect of reducing the prison population. All were rejected by the Government. The most significant and effective proposal was automatic supervised release for prisoners sentenced to less than three years. This would reduce the prison population dramatically and continually. In that sense, it is incomparable to the partially suspended sentence proposal. At one time, it was enthusiastically canvassed by the Home Secretary inside and outside the House. It was then dropped, apparently after he had listened to the views of the judiciary.
In Committee, hon. Members were told that there had been a sentencing seminar in Roehampton last autumn which was apparently a decisive event. It opposed this proposal, the main reason being, we were told, that it was not selective. I feel that the Government are allowing themselves to be controlled too much by the views of magistrates, judges, recorders and other members of the judiciary. The duty of the judiciary is to impose sentences within the limits set by Parliament. The duty of Parliament is to decide what those limits should be. The judiciary, because it sentences people, is not necessarily the fount of all wisdom, even on sentencing.
Lord Justice Lawton, interviewed on television, said that, in his view, all first-time burglars should be locked up, apparently without the need for explanation and without taking any mitigating factors into consideration. There was to be no difference between one burglar and another. His view was simply that all first-time burglars should be locked up. That is an extremely dogmatic attitude to sentencing. It would be wrong for the House to take the views of the judiciary on sentencing as being the first and last word on the matter.
Regardless of the explosion in our prison population and regardless of the views of many of those who work

with offenders, the Government are opposing this reasonable measure of automatic supervised release which they themselves canvassed. They are throwing away a great opportunity to bring about a dramatic and continued reduction in the prison population.
The Government have also rejected other measures suggested by the Opposition to reduce the prison population. These included the proposal to take out of custody the under 17-year-olds and the proposal to make some offences non-imprisonable. The proposal to make male soliciting non-imprisonable was rejected by the Government, although they were prepared to make female soliciting non-imprisonable. The possession of cannabis for personal use is still to be imprisonable. Maintenance defaulters are still to be imprisoned. It has to be borne in mind that the Home Secretary's view is that the only people who should be put in prison are those who are a danger to the public. The right hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that all those people that I have mentioned fall into that category.
We also proposed that drunks, who are fine defaulters, should be taken out of prison. Again, that was rejected. I draw the Minister of State's attention to the confusion that still seems to exist between himself and the Home Secretary on the question of drunks in prison. The Times reported the Home Secretary's speech to a conference of the Conservative Central Council in Bournemouth. The headline was:
Mr Whitelaw to stop jail terms for drunks.
The report stated:
Mr. Whitelaw said it was no use continuing to overburden staff, too often working in antiquated and inadequate buildings, with petty offenders such as persistent drunks who could not pay their fines".
We were assured by the Minister in Committee that the drunks who are imprisoned are not those who cannot pay their fines but those who will not pay them. Apparently there is all the difference in the world between a drunk who cannot pay and a drunk who will not pay his fine. They are still drunks and they are still in prison. It may have been a misprint, but of course it is The Times.Although the Home Secretary believes that the drunks in prisons cannot pay their fines, whereas the Minister of State believes that they will not, the Opposition believe that they should not be in prison at all.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is the hon. Lady suggesting to the House that if the categories of prisoners that she has just described—drunks and those convicted of drug offences—are removed from the prisons, it will make any significant difference to the prison population?

Dr. Summerskill: The number of people who would be removed from prison by all the measures that we proposed—automatic supervised release, the taking out of custody of those aged under 17, the four remaining offences that we wished to be made non-imprisonable, plus those that I shall now list—would add up ro thousands, especially with the emphasis on automatic supervised release.
The introduction of a 110-day limit on custodial remand, which exists in Scotland, was discussed in Committee. I hope that it will be raised in another place, because the Government's answer was not at all satisfactory.
In Committee, we proposed the establishment of guidelines for imposing custodial sentences. I now come


to the provision of information to courts about vacancies in penal establishments. This matter was raised by Conservative Members, and we also proposed it as a measure that would require courts to think long and hard before sending anyone to prison. Surely that cannot be a bad thing for the courts to do. Lord Harris, the chairman of the Parole Board, said that the board considers that factor when deciding whether to release a prisoner.It is far more sensible to take that into consideration before someone is sent to prison than when he is already there.
On Second Reading, the Opposition stressed the major difficulties in and omissions from the Bill. Our efforts to correct them in Committee were opposed. The Bill fails to introduce a new single custodial sentence for all young offenders aged over 17 with early release to supervision in the community and it fails to introduce a measure, or measures, to bring about both a significant and a permanent reduction in the prison population.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook said of the Bill:
Our continued support depends on the Government's cooperating with us when we make what we hope are entirely creative suggestions for ensuring that the new sentences and powers are used in the way that I believe the Home Secretary and the Government intend."—[Official Report, 20 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 303.]
A golden opportunity for radical change has been lost. A chance to tackle decisively a crisis in our prisons has been thrown away. For those reasons, we shall oppose the Third Reading tonight.

Mrs. Sheila Faith: I welcome the Bill, and I was privileged to serve on the Standing Committee for a short time. Combined with the policy of strengthening the police force and the proposed building of new prisons, the Bill should help to stem the increasing tide of lawlessness in our society.
I am especially interested in the new shorter detention centre sentences and the stricter regime, because last September Foston Hall, a junior detention centre in my constituency, began a pilot scheme for the new short, sharp shock treatment. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Halifax, (Dr. Summerskill) that detention centres are of no use and never achieve results. Magistrates have given assurances that they will not use detention centres as a sentence unless a custodial sentence is deemed suitable.
I have also had the opportunity of witnessing the frustration of judges in Crown courts over the restriction on the length of imprisonment for young offenders, because no sentence was allowed to be imposed of between six months and three years. I am glad that that restriction is to be removed. I know that magistrates who deal with juveniles have been worried about the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and will be glad to know that it has been revised. I welcome the fact that parents must bear in mind the fact that they may have to pay the fines imposed upon their children.
I have no wish to find fault with the Bill, but I am concerned about clause 54. My concern is shared by the Magistrates' Association, which has asked me to state its concern on the Floor of the House. Magistrates are worried that soliciting by prostitutes on the streets of London and other large cities could again become a serious public

nuisance with the removal of imprisonment as a final sanction. They believe, therefore, that the possibility of imprisonment is the only real deterrent.
The Magistrates' Association states:
It would seem that Parliament should consider whether there is any good purpose in retaining this law if, in the last resort, the sanction of imprisonment is not retained. To fine women in such a situation is merely an invitation to the offender to repeat the offence in order to pay the fine and, on the other hand, if the fine is not paid, they are liable to be imprisoned in default. To argue, as some do, that in the latter case a distinction can be made because they are then being imprisoned for disobedience to the order of a court does not seem to be either logical or helpful bearing in mind the likely source of any money to pay fines and the fact that the commission of an offence during the currency of a suspended sentence of imprisonment equally amounts to such disobedience.
The association continues:
Many magistrates, therefore, are not attracted to the idea of fining women for such offences. The options of discharge or probation, of course, remain open for use in appropriate circumstances and the fact that, on third conviction, the offence is imprisonable means that it is possible to make a community service order. Strange though it may seem such orders have been made successfully. This power would be lost if the offence ceased to be imprisonable.
Not all magistrates would agree with the views of the association, but whenever this matter has been debated by the association, proposals to remove the possibility of imprisonment for soliciting have been heavily defeated.
Unlike other members of the Standing Committee who voted in favour of the new clause, I am old enough to remember what it was like in our cities before the Street Offences Act 1959 became law. Prostitution was very much in evidence in all areas of the West End of London and in the centres of our larger cities. However, I have received strong support from other hon. Members of my own generation.
I know that my hon. Friends on the Committee were motivated by the most humane considerations when they voted for the new clause. I am sure that they were bearing in mind that conditions in our prisons are disgusting, overcrowded as they are. However, in trying to reduce the prison population in this way they are chasing rainbows. Since the early 1960s, only 300 prostitutes per year have been imprisoned, and then only for short periods. Therefore, we are not dealing with large numbers and the impact on the prison population will be small. Indeed, the women's prisons are not so crowded.

Mr. John Carlisle: I remind my hon. Friend that probably the greatest offenders are not the women concerned, but those behind them. Does she not agree that it is unfair that the offenders whom we are trying to keep out of prison are those who commit the less serious offence? Should not my hon. Friend turn her attention to those behind the women, who are financing them, and who have the most to gain financially?

Mrs. Faith: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I shall come to that issue.
The number of people apprehended for soliciting dropped dramatically from a peak of 19,000 in 1959 to 3,000 in 1960. The 1959 Act worked very efficiently. The effect was immediate and spectacular. It would be a grave mistake to disturb that measure.
It is the duty of the House to uphold the moral climate in our cities. I pay tribute to the Indecent Displays (Control) Act, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). I was privileged to serve on the


Standing Committee that considered that Bill and all the political parties represented were agreed on the value of the measure. If the clause is allowed to remain in the Bill there will be a real deterioration in standards. Many people who voted Conservative at the last general election will be surprised that the Government are allowing this to happen. I am sure that my constituents did not elect me to allow a situation to develop where they will not be able to visit London, or even Derby, without being aware of the effects of the new clause.

Mr. Wheeler: My hon. Friend suggests that some parts of our big cities—I refer to my constituency, which is within the area of London where these matters are of some consequence—will be worsened by the -removal of the power to imprison the more inadequate type of prostitute who is arrested and taken before the courts. That is not the view of my residents' association, nor is it the view of magistrates like myself who have served in inner London, or that of many other people who have given a great deal of thought to this problem. I ask my hon. Friend to think carefully before she makes sweeping generalisations about what she believes to be the views and opinions of people in inner London.

Mrs. Faith: I am happy to say that I am not judging by experiences in my constituency, but looking back to several years ago when I was a magistrate in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which, unfortunately, is no stranger to this type of problem. I am putting forward the views not of all magistrates of course, but of the Magistrates' Association.
I am not attempting to pass a moral judgment on the rights and wrongs of prostitution, and it is certainly not illegal. However, I should like to draw attention to an article in the News of the World on 14 March, in which prostitutes themselves denounced the move to end jail sentences for soliciting. They said:
Pimps would have a field day and the streets will be flooded with 16 and 17 year old girls.
It may not be the duty of the House to moralise, but it is our duty to protect the safety of those girls.
Before 1959 our cities were still relatively peaceful places. Since then we have had an alarming increase in violence, robbery, muggings and gangs of youths roaming the streets, as well as in indecent displays. If we add to that an increase in the number of prostitutes, often with their attendant pimps, even if to a lesser degree than in the 1940s and 1950s, it will cause a further deterioration in the moral atmosphere of our cities. I hope that before the Bill returns from another place it will have been amended so that new clause 54 is no longer part of an otherwise excellent measure.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I thank the Minister of State for his kind remarks about me and for, even at this late stage—in a move that may be unprecedented on a Third Reading—fulfilling a commitment that he gave to me in Committee and which he was not able to fulfil on Report because the appropriate new clause was not selected by Mr. Speaker.
We were not able to debate on Report an amendment to ensure that more stringent criteria were imposed before a custodial sentence could be passed on a young offender. Those criteria were that the offender was a danger to himself or the public, or that he had shown himself unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial alternatives, or

that he had committed so serious an offence that a non-custodial sentence was clearly inappropriate. Although those safeguards are not written into the Bill, they will form the basis of the guidelines that the Court of Appeal will lay down for the lower courts on a suitable occasion, and I am grateful to the Minister of State for that.
I said on Second Reading that I warmly welcomed several provisions in the Bill, but that it was a major disappointment for two main reasons. The first was that it did nothing to reverse the trend of the past decade or more towards an increasing number of young offenders and juveniles being incarcerated in penal establishments and residential institutions. Indeed, many aspects of the Bill may exacerbate, rather than reduce, that trend.
The second major disappointment was that the Bill did not address itself to the crisis of overcrowding in the prison system and the appalling conditions in most of our local remand prisons. The Home Secretary has attested to that situation and has conceded that it is incompatible with minimum standards of human decency. [Interruption.]
May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to suggest that the hon. Members behind me who are carrying on a conversation should do so outside and not in the Chamber? I have tolerated it for some time and I would not normally object, but one of the hon. Gentlemen has a very resonant voice which makes it difficult for me to concentrate.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: We are prompting you.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman could not do that even if he tried.
Although the Bill was improved in Committee, mainly because the Government accepted amendments tabled on behalf of the all-party parliamentary penal affairs group, the criticisms that I and several other hon. Members made on Second Reading are still valid.
The Bill contains several proposals, particularly in part I, that should be welcomed, including the merging of the borstal training sentence and imprisonment into a new youth custody sentence and the enshrinement of the principle of determinacy of prison sentences for young people. That is a milestone on the road to a more sensible sentencing practice. Again, the Bill makes provision for time spent on remand to be counted for all custodial sentences for young offenders. That should be welcomed by everyone.
Then there are the alternatives to custody which are now enshrined in the Bill, be they the supervised activity schemes, the long-awaited extension of community service orders to 16-year-olds, or the extension of the Crown courts' ability to pass attendance centre orders. Those are all highly desirable reforms, although the Government must acknowledge that, unless and until sufficient financial resources are made available to ensure that those alternatives become a reality, they will not achieve their objectives, which are shared by Labour Members.
Part I of the Bill has been substantially improved by amendments tabled in Committee—reference was made to them but the provenance was not given—by the parliamentary penal affairs group. In particular, there is the provision for imposing statutory criteria for the imposition of a secure care order on children placed in secure care in community homes.
There was the amendment tabled by the parliamentary penal affairs group to relax the prohibition on an


attendance centre order being passed on those who had a previous custodial sentence. There was the amendment tabled by the official Opposition requiring that social inquiry reports should be undertaken—except in exceptional circumstances—before a custodial sentence is imposed. There was the improvement—proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) and accepted—that legal representation should be mandatory before a custodial sentence is imposed upon a young offender. There was the Minister's announcement to me in correspondence that the Government will amend the Bill in another place to provide that juveniles given a youth custody sentence will not usually be held in adult prisons, except on a temporary basis. All those are substantial and important improvements made in Committee, yet there are two major drawbacks, in spite of those improvements to part I of the Bill.
The first is undoubtedly the irrelevance and absurdity of the retention of the residential care order. Admittedly, the Government seem to be as embarrassed by that manifesto commitment as we are assured that it will not achieve any of its objectives, and that it will be counterproductive to the underlying philosophy of the Bill. It is a major and monumental irrelevance at a time when the Government acknowledge that far too many young people are held in residential institutions, and are held for too long, and when it is acknowledged that it damages the majority of them rather than helping them in any constructive way; when the Government accept that the recidivist rate in community homes is 76 per cent. higher than that in penal establishments, and when the Government acknowledge that all informed professional opinion is of the view that there should be a shift in emphasis away from custodial residential placements to treatment to care within the community. Having accepted all those factors, the Government nevertheless produce the ill-conceived, ill-thought-out and mischievous proposal to impose a residential care order.
The Government have advanced £6 million for the residential care order when only £2 million can be found for intermediate treatment, even though the Secretary of State for Social Services and his junior Minister have said repeatedly that it is intermediate treatment that should be encouraged and behind which resources should be placed, and that residential treatment and residential care should be diminished. In this case in practice the exact opposite is happening to what the Government said they wanted.
The hon. and l earned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) says that residential care orders are important. That was the implication of his rejection of my earlier comments. There is no way that he or his right hon. and hon. Friends can show that those orders will contribute towards dealing with the needs of delinquent juveniles or towards creating a more sensible, humane and efficient penal and criminal justice system. They will not reduce the level of juvenile crime. I hope that the Government may be persuaded in another place—not least by their own supporters—that even this watered-down version of what we find in the manifesto will do a great deal of damage to young people and the penal system. It is better lost now, before that damage happens.
The consequences that may flow from the ability of the courts to impose shorter detention centre sentences are another drawback to part I. I approve of the power given

to courts to pass shorter sentences wherever possible. I accept that the Government share my intention of wanting to ensure that young people spend less time in custody. The Government must also accept that there are considerable misgivings on the part of those who administer the system, whether they be governors, prison officers or probation officers. They fear that the power given to the courts will result in a larger number of young boys being given the taste of imprisonment who would not otherwise have been given a custodial sentence. It is important to establish statutory safeguards to ensure that a prison sentence is passed only as a last resort on an individual who actually needs it, and to whom it would be of benefit.
The part of the Bill that deals with adults has been substantially improved, almost exclusively as a result of amendments tabled by the parliamentary penal affairs group in Committee. We have ended, rightly and properly, the absurdity and irrelevence—whatever the hon. Lady the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) may say, who seems to speak without her customary information—of the imprisonment of prostitutes for soliciting and those vulnerable, inarticulate and disadvantaged members of the community who commit the previously imprisonable offences of begging and sleeping rough. Those decisions were taken by members of all parties. They are welcome improvements.
We have given remand prisoners the right to apply to the Crown court for bail. We have empowered the courts to release on bail those recommended for deportation. We have reversed the judgments in the Gilby case and the Rogers v. Cullen case. We have reduced the period for which the Crown court can imprison fine defaulters. We have introduced the possibility of the implementation of discretionary parole for short-term prisoners. Those improvements all resulted from amendments tabled by the parliamentary penal affairs group.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on having accepted those amendments and on having shown a facility—both in Committee and on Report, and even at this late hour—for being receptive to arguments, flexible in adapting those arguments and reasonably open-minded in an attempt to improve the Bill. It is fair to record that amendments tabled by the Oppostition or on an all-party basis found a receptive, willing and sympathetic ear in the Minister.
I am not suggesting that the Minister of State is perfect. No Tory is perfect, by definition. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not perfect and, unfortunately, he was not prepared to listen to the cogent arguments advanced by the Opposition in favour of amendments which would have reduced the prison population substantially. The Bill contains no major provision, regretfully, which would deal with the crisis with which we are confronted. There are, of course, many sensible and desirable proposals in the Bill, and I do not gainsay that, but as a Bill it is irrelevant to the more than 44,000 people in our prisons today.
The partially suspended sentence provided for in clause 25 will apparently—and, on all the evidence available to us, is likely to—increase the prison population rather than reduce it. I accept that it is a gamble. I accept that there may be a fine balance between whether there will be more or fewer people in prison as a result of the activation of partially suspended sentences, but we all know that had the Minister of State been prepared to accept amendments designed to introduce automatic release on parole after the


expiry of one third of a sentence through the Bill, we could have reduced the prison population by a significant 7,000. We all know, too, that if the Government had been prepared to accept amendments, again tabled by the parliamentary penal affairs group, to introduce a conditional release scheme of the kind that has been operating successfully in Northern Ireland since 1976, we could have reduced the prison population by about 4,000.
Neither method would be enough to achieve the objectives set for us by the Government, the Prison and Borstal Governors' Association and the new chief inspector of prisons, all of whom want to get the prison population down to the middle 30,000 figure. Neither of the two suggested amendments would have achieved that, but they would have made a substantial march on the road towards a more humane level of prison population.
I accept that the Government responded positively to our amendments proposing to provide that short-term prisoners should be eligible for parole and that parole eligibility should be reduced from 12 to six months, and we have amended the Bill so that the Minister may by order introduce that if at the end of his review he finds the system to be practicable. If the hon. and learned Gentleman succeeds in catching your eye a second time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will say how long he expects the review to take.
The most important feature of the Bill is the way in which it addresses itself to the two fundamental problems that I outlined at the beginning of my remarks. It does not really relate to the very serious problems of our juvenile system, and clearly it is irrelevant to the real, fundamental and deep-seated problems of overcrowding in our prisons.
The Home Secretary has gone up and down the country telling everyone that there is no need for the large number of people to be kept in our prisons who are there today. He has argued convincingly, articulately and with great sincerity that many thousands of prisoners could be released without any danger to the public or to public order. He has argued cogently and vehemently in the House and outside that we must reduce the lengths of prison sentences and that we must reduce significantly the number of people in prison.
In the Bill, the Home Secretary had the major—probably the only—opportunity in the lifetime of this Parliament to carry those reforms into legislation. Unfortunately and regrettably he has funked the issue. For whatever reason, he has not had the political courage or the political will to address himself to the fundamental problems in our prisons and to do what he says is right and knows to be right, which is to amend our legislation to ensure that significantly and permanently we can reduce the prison population. It is, therefore, a great disappointment, given the amendments that have been made, that we must give a Third Reading to a Bill which is half-complete and at best irrelevant to the real needs with which we are confronted.

Mr. John Wheeler: The debate is remarkable, if only because, if one looks around the Chamber, one sees that few hon. Members are present. The hon. Members for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) complained about the chattering of two SDP Members sitting behind him. One immediately fled the Chamber, leaving but one with us. On the Opposition Benches, apart from the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill),

there is only the hon. Member for Ormskirk and the Whip who is on duty. That is remarkable when we are debating a measure that deals with—

Mr. Edward Lyons: rose—

Mr. Wheeler: I have only just started.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Social Democratic Party. Is he aware that in proportion to the overall number of Conservative Members, the number of alliance Members present is far higher?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. We really ought to get on with the Third Reading of the Bill.

Dr. Summerskill: For the benefit of the record, which I know hon. Members who are not present will read, will the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) enumerate the Conservative Members in the Chamber?

Mr. Wheeler: I am afraid that I was too generous in giving way as I did. I was about to say that we are debating an extremely important Bill, which deals with the criminal justice system.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Answer the question. There are eight Conservative Members present.

Mr. Wheeler: I shall. After the management of the economy, the issue that now concerns British people most is that of crime and law and order. That is my point. That is why I pointed out that so few hon. Members are present. That is surprising, as the Bill contains many important clauses.

Mr. Edward Lyons: More Tories are leaving There are now only five.

Mr. Wheeler: The way in which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has guided the Bill through Committee and the House has been an object lesson in itself. I congratulate him on the way in which he has considered the details and presented the measure both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
I am a strong friend of the Bill. I understand that in the early days of the Committee my name was mentioned several times in connection with many of the measures being examined. I understand that my statements were being prayed in support of proposals to reform, change or improve some of the clauses that were under consideration.
It is worth considering, however, what the Bill attempts to achieve. Most of the provisions relate in one way or another to the sentencing of offenders. The principal purpose of the Bill is to provide the courts with flexibility and effective powers to deal with the range of offenders who appear before the courts. In that connection, we must remember that the group in society who contribute most to crime are, unfortunately, young offenders. The Metropolitan Police arrest rate for 1981 shows that one-quarter of the arrests in London were of children aged between 10 and 16. The next quarter of arrests were of young persons between the ages of 17 and 21. The balance consisted of persons over the age of 21, although most of them were in their twenties or early thirties.
It is in that context that we must examine what the Bill seeks to achieve. The new system of youth custody, for example, provides for replacement of the existing borstal sentence and ends the existing sentence of imprisonment


for those under the age of 21. I think that everyone who knows the criminal justice system will agree that the old borstal system was not effective. It did not meet the conditions of this age or provide the kind of sentence required by the courts. Instead, offenders aged 15 to 21 for whom a sentence of more than four months is appropriate will now be committed to youth custody and proper training facilities will be made available for them. Restrictions on sentencing 17 to 21-year-olds to between six months and three years in custody will, as promised, be removed, as is appropriate in view of the nature of the arrest rate, particularly in our big cities.
I welcome especially the fact that more community service orders will be made possible and that such orders will be available for 16-year-olds as well as for older offenders. That, too, is particularly appropriate.
The extension of detention centres is also to be welcomed, especially the relaxation of the sentence itself so that the courts may, if they wish, impose a sentence of three weeks. The whole of modern penological thinking, based on all the research available from the Home Office research unit and institutes of criminology in the United Kingdom, Europe and North America, shows that a shorter sentence is just as effective as a longer sentence in deterring and controlling the young offender. For that reason, especially, I welcome the proposal. I do not share the fear that it is likely to lead to an increase in the use of the custodial sentence. I believe that the judiciary, and especially the magistrates, understand that it is essential that the custodial sentence should be used only as a port of last resort and that the other disposals available to the courts should be used in the first instance.
Other aspects of the Bill are perhaps not yet understood by the House as a whole or by the public. For example, the parents and guardians of young offenders will be required to pay any fine or compensation. That is extremely important and long overdue. It is high time that the parents of young offenders were told that they must become responsible for the wrongdoing of their children. The arrest rate in London alone demonstrates beyond argument the urgency of parents becoming more responsible for the conduct of their children if we are to have any control over the increase in crime, particularly in the great cities.
I welcome also the new standard scale of fines provided in the Bill, although I am disappointed that my own attempts to improve the fines in the housing legislation to deal with bad landlords have not yet found favour. I live in hope, however, that my hon. and learned Friend may be able to use his influence in another place in a constructive and helpful manner.
The other part of the Bill that is of great importance is that dealing with compensation for the victims of crime. The improvements that are to be made under the Bill are especially welcome. We often talk about the problems of the criminal justice system, overcrowded prisons and crime in general. However, we fail to talk about the victims, those who suffer as a consequence of the wrongdoing of young people in our society. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Bill makes it possible for courts to make a compensation order instead of another penalty, such as a fine.
Where both compensation and a fine are levied, the payment of the compensation is to have priority. In the Bill

we are reversing hundreds of years of history. We are saying that the victim shall have priority over the State when it comes to the collection of money through the criminal justice system. That is very much to be welcomed. The House should endorse it and tell the country about it.
At present, only the whole of a sentence can be suspended, otherwise a full prison term has to be imposed. The Bill enables the courts, to suspend part of a sentence so that a short period of imprisonment can be given in cases where, after careful consideration, the court believes that it is sufficient to encourage the deterring of crime.
That is a very welcome measure, because I agree with many hon. Members that, on the whole, we send people to prison for far too long. We could often use a shorter sentence, especially for crimes where no violence has been used. That must be the purpose behind the measure. Therefore, I welcome it.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Ormskirk suggest that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was lacking in courage in what he was proposing in the measure. When one looks at the record of my right hon. Friend, one is bound to say that in the short period that he has been in office he has faced with great courage and determination a whole range of problems.
My right hon. Friend began by looking at the state of the police service in England and Wales. He did not hesitate to ensure that the police were properly paid. He has seen the strength of the police force build up in all constabulary districts so that, with the exception of the Metropolitan Police, those districts are up to the authorised establishment. Even in London we are within about 1,300 of the authorised establishment. That has resulted in more police officers being available for duty on the streets. That is an important contribution to the prevention of crime, which is the first responsibility of the police. That is very much to my right hon. Friend's credit. When we look at the clauses, we should remember that the strength of the police force is essential if we are to fight the growing crime problem.
My right hon. Friend looked at the problems of the prison service. He took on board many of the recommendations of the May committee. He has revitalised the prison service under a new board of management, with a director general who is more accessible to the media and to the public. He can talk about the problems of the prison service. Many other commendable measures have been taken and again that is to the credit of my right hon. Friend.
Whatever measures the House may take to control crime, there is no absolute guarantee that the measures that are made available to the courts will inevitably result in the control of crime or the reduction of the number of persons going to prison. There is no simple solution that we can examine and apply to a complex human problem.
By its flexibility and approach to the sentencing problems of the courts, the Bill makes an important contribution to the general control of crime. Too many people are sent to prison. I hope that the courts will recognise the importance of using the shorter sentence, especially for those who commit property crimes, small theft crimes and non-violent crimes. For such persons, the shorter sentence is just as effective and in no way imperils the well-being of society.
The Government must soon direct their attention, with a great deal more enthusiasm than has been shown so far


to the prevention of crime in the first instance. Over the past 20 or 30 years we have failed to control crime because we have not examined the possibility of preventing it from occurring, particularly with regard to property. The time is coming when we must provide the new larger police force with the measures to enable them to do more by way of crime prevention than has been the case.
Perhaps I might offer some suggestions. Most of the crimes committed by young offenders are to do with property—burglaries or theft of property from cars or buildings. Surely it must be sensible to try to prevent the entry of such young people into buildings. The police crime prevention service should be greatly strengthened from within the resources of the existing police establishment, with a view to encouraging programmes of crime prevention, especially in the cities. Our large housing estates and mansion blocks should be equipped with entry phones, toughened glass, decent locks and door frames that can withstand a kick from a child wanting to enter the building to steal property. Those measures would inevitably prevent crime and stop these young people appearing before the courts.
The next stage in the control of crime is to look more eagerly at how it may be prevented. That must be one of the essential duties of the police service, if the measures in the Bill that are concerned with widening the powers and the flexibility of the courts are to be successful in the long run.
I welcome the Bill. It makes an important contribution to the criminal justice system. It will not result in more people going to prison, as some hon. Members have suggested. On the contrary, I believe that it will equip the courts with a range of long overdue powers. I again congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the way in which he has piloted the measure through the Committee and the House.

Mr. William Pitt: On Second Reading I said that the Bill was a curate's egg, and I called for a reduction in crime and in the prison population. I am sad to say that I still believe the Bill to be a curate's egg. It is good in parts, but it is not good in as many parts as it should be. I should like it to contain more definite measures for the proper training of youngsters in custody. I should like it to provide that no custodial sentences be imposed on young offenders under the age of 17, unless they need to be detained for the protection of society or themselves. We fail if we use imprisonment, save to ensure the protection of the community and of some persons from themselves.
I am worried about clause 21. It provides for another form of custodial sentence. I hope that the Government will seek in another place to amend the clause.
We discussed at length in Committee and on Report the possibility of a curfew to deter young offenders and to keep unruly young people and hooligans off the streets. Although most hon. Members agreed on Report that a curfew could be effective as a deterrent, they were worried as to whether such a scheme could be operated. I suggested that the only way to use the curfew was as part of a supervision order. Therefore, I welcome the fact that such a scheme will be considered in another place. We must weigh the burdens that may be put on the police, the courts, the social services and people who may be involved in ensuring that young offenders adhere to the curfew.
I firmly believe that young offenders should not be allowed to get away scot-free. Contrary to what many Government Members may think, I do not believe in the "pat on the head" treatment. Being patted on the head and told to be a good person is not effective. However, we do not necessarily deter by imposing custodial sentences.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Member probably knew that I would seek to intervene at this stage, because I normally do. I take the hon. Gentleman back to his dislike of supervision orders and his desire for a creative method of correcting young offenders. Does he agree that offenders are probably better candidates and easier to handle if they are under some form of supervision than if they are not? Lack of supervision makes it difficult to use the creative methods that the hon. Gentleman advocates.

Mr. Pitt: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I thought that he would refer to the curfew. I agree that young offenders should be under some form of supervision. I do not think that young people should be allowed to go scot-free, but, save for a number of specific offences involving violence or which are so dreadful that the young offender should be kept in custody for his own protection, there should be greater emphasis on supervision in the community. If a person has started to climb the ladder of various forms of custodial sentence, at a certain level a custodial sentence will not be much of a deterrent. It will not be of much use in protecting the community from him or in expiating his crime.
I am glad that in some respects the Bill will provide forms of sentencing and treatment of young offenders that will mean them to take their place in society while paying their debt to it. I have reservations about embodying curfews in supervision orders because of the administrative burdens that will fall on so many in ensuring that the curfews are obeyed, but in general I welcome the provisions. Undoubtedly, it will be difficult to enforce curfews.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Pitt: There is sufficient in the Bill for me to that the Liberal Party will not oppose it. The Bill takes us a small step forward, and we should welcome any such step that serves to make criminal justice work more efficiently and effectively.
On Second Reading the spokesman for the Liberal Party, in concert with the spokesman for the official Opposition, said that Liberal Members would not oppose Second Reading and that we looked forward to amending the Bill in Committee and on Report. The Liberal Party will not be opposing the Third Reading because we feel that it is a minor step forward to the more effective and efficient administration of criminal justice. However, it is not such a significant step as to obviate the need for much deeper discussion and a more careful examination of potentially better provisions in subsequent Criminal Justice Bills.

Mr. Matthew Parris: I shall concentrate my brief remarks on a small and relatively unimportant part of the Bill with which I had something to do in Committee. I refer to the control of street soliciting. I do not have the advantage of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who has been the architect


of 99 per cent. of the modest hints that have been dropped to the Government at various times. The Government have responded by fulfilling certain commitments.
I wish to support a corner of the Bill against my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith). Before doing so, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the able and courageous way in which she spoke about street prostitution. I cannot understand the ribaldry that greeted her remarks. She is worried about the rise in street prostitution, and there is no reason why she should not view it with some concern.
The step which those who considered the Bill in Committee wanted the Government to take was not an obvious one, and the previous Labour Government did not make any alteration to the penalties for street soliciting. It would not be an obvious step and, to use a phrase that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister used in another context, it would be something of a gamble. If it were taken, the outcome might not be what we desire.
I draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph on the attitude of the Magistrates' Association towards street prostitution. First, it contended—this argument was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper—that there was no point in having offences on the statute book for which prison is not the ultimate sanction. That is a strong argument that would wreak havoc with many planning laws, parking laws and motoring laws. There is no reason why fines should not be the ultimate sanction for some crimes.
A second argument that both the association and my hon. Friend put forward was that, by fining people, we simply invite offenders to repeat offences to pay the fines. We have many similar pieces of legislation on the statute book for which fines are the only ultimate sanction. Examples include the Shops Act, particularly those parts dealing with Sunday trading, and some of the street trading legislation concerned with trading from barrows. In all those cases, fines are the ultimate sanction. In all those cases it could be said that to fine the offender is simply to invite him to repeat the offence to pay for the crime but it seems common sense to me that, by depriving the offender of the profit that he may have made from the commission of the crime, a repetition of the crime is discouraged. That may be the case with prostitution.
The point was also made that community service orders can be given only for imprisonable offences. It is important that street soliciting should be imprisonable so that magistrates can, if they wish, impose community service orders. With 3,336 convictions relating to prostitution in 1980, only 116 community service orders were made. That is a negligible proportion. I cannot see that as an argument for retaining imprisonment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belper mentioned the 1959 Act and the improvement that has taken place since that time. That improvement has continued after further legislation in the late 1960s. The legislation has provided both a carrot and a stick. Prostitution has been made easier to practise indoors and more difficult to pursue on the pavement. The effect has been not to stop prostitution or necessarily to reduce its incidence, but simply to drive it off the streets. Part of the purpose in driving prostitution off the streets is to enable it to be continued in a way that is not illegal. By and large, most of the people left

soliciting on the streets are the inadequate offenders for whom imprisonment is a punishment for inadequacy and is not in any way appropriate
The Magistrates' Association suggested that the argument on this subject has gone by default. It has not. During two and a half hours of discussion in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Belper ably and fully put forward the views of the Magistrates' Association. No new or determinant conclusion is likely to be reached through the submission of further evidence. The only evidence that we now await, if the Bill becomes law, is evidence from the streets. We want to see whether the provisions will lead to a great increase in street prostitution. I do not think that they will; I do not know that they will not.
In another context, my hon. Friend the Member for Belper was brave and right to talk of an element of gambling. There is such an element in the proposed changes. It may prove that we are wrong, but I do not think so. I hope that the Bill will make little difference. It seems a humane and sensible little reform.
This is not a sensational Bill. It is imaginative and intelligent and it requires a certain amount of courage. At the same time, it is hard-headed and liberal. I have always admired men and measures who and which succeed in combining hard-headedness with liberalism. There is no reason why those two qualities should not go together. I wish the Bill a safe passage in another place.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Over the years there has been argument about the extent to which judges should have absolute discretion in imposing sentences. The Bill celebrates the return to judges in all offences except murder of the discretion broadly to impose the sentence that they consider fit. As the years go by we shall see the way in which they use the discretion.
The custodial sentence imposed on a young person for the first time is usually either three or six months in a detention centre. In imposing a sentence of borstal training the judge does not determine the length. The authorities decide when to release the young person. Section 3 of the 1961 Act imposed severe restrictions on sentencing to prison young people between the ages of 17 and 21. They will be swept away.
Under the Bill for the first time a magistrate may impose a detention centre sentence of between 21 days and four months. The lower limit of 21 days may encourage magistrates to send more young people to a detention centre for a short, sharp shock. But we shall never reduce sentences if it is always argued that to reduce the minimum sentence will increase the number of people in custody. It has been the prime motive of reformers to reduce sentences. We must take a chance although I fear that more youngsters may be sent to prison. We must hope that the judiciary at all levels will use the new power responsibly and not see it as an easy way to give people a taste of custody. We must hope that the new power will reduce the number of days spent in prison by young people.
I am not sure what the outcome of scrapping borstal will be. Owing to the pressure on the number of places, young people are normally released from borstal after six to eight months. They do not normally stay for a year. Judges will now be able to sentence an 18-year-old to youth custody for 18 months, which with one-third remission means 12 months. That would be a longer sentence than the normal current borstal sentence, so young people could be in


prison for longer. That is the danger of scrapping borstal and giving the judiciary the discretion to sentence young persons over 17 to any term up to the maximum laid down by statute for the offence. It is a good idea to get rid of the concept of borstal but we wait with trepidation to see what the judiciary will do with the new power.
Judges will be able to impose whatever sentence they wish up to the maximum for the offence, with the exception of offenders under 17, where they are limited to 12 months, and the sentence for murder. The Government are worried about the reaction of the public were they to restore to judges the right to give what sentence they think is proper after a person is found guilty of or has pleaded guilty to murder. The automatic sentence is life imprisonment. Everyone knows that the great bulk of murder cases are domestic. They are not robbery charges. Judges who would prefer to give sentences of six years, eight years or whatever they think appropriate must simply say "Life". The whole question of the appropriate sentence is pushed away from the judges to the executive and administrative authorities. They are concerned that anyone released from prison after committing a murder who offends again will get them into hot water. There is therefore a tendency to keep people convicted of murder imprisoned for a long time even though the authorities know that it was a domestic murder without any real likelihood of repetition.
The judges want to have the power restored to them to give the sentence that they think fit. It would save an enormous amount of court time. Many trials are simply designed to reduce a possible murder conviction to manslaughter to enable the judge to give the sentence that he thinks appropriate. It might be life; it might be less. Now we have a glaring exception to the general trend of restoring judicial discretion. Murder is left in a category of its own even when, as sometimes happens, the person convicted of murder is found not to have intended to kill but to have intended serious bodily harm. In those cases, a heavy sentence is required. It seems odd, however, that judges are to be trusted with discretion in all areas, but that for murder, officials operating in private should decide the true sentence. It is they who decide when a person convicted of murder is released.
An oddity of the Bill is that it enshrines in statute a difference of approach towards women and men. I give two examples. There is no detention centre provision for girls whereas there is for boys up to the age of 17. The second example of the Government's attitude is that for youth custody for those over the age of 15, the sentence normally for males must be four months or more but for females it can be 21 days or more. Just because the offender is female, the minimum for youth custody is 21 days. I do not argue that there must be equality and that there must therefore be heavier sentences for women. It is, however, a curiosity. I believe that the Government have acted on the basis that they want to keep as small as possible the need for custodial accommodation for women. They are prepared to take a calculated chance to see that women are treated more lightly than men because of the great pressure on accommodation.
There are other examples in the Bill to show that the Government are being forced to do things simply because of the pressure of prisoners on the available accommodation. What are the pressures for reform? There are those who, because of their view of society and humanity, want reductions in sentences and a different approach to our

penal system. There is then the Home Office approach, which may have about it something of the attitude that I have just described. However, the Home Office is understandably obsessed and at its wits' end over the need to reduce the number of people going into custody when the prisons are simply not available. The prison building programme is not really big enough even to replace our nineteenth century prisons, let alone to add to that accommodation.
To counteract that, the Home Office has come up with a brand new proposal in English law, which is that prisoners can be released by a special procedure up to six months before their sentence expires, including remission, where there is not enough accommodation in the prisons. The Bill is disappointing because the Government have not taken every opportunity to reduce the numbers of prisoners entering the prisons. While they wish to give the impression that they are tough nonetheless when the numbers in prison become too high they have taken the power of early release. The prison system is breaking down and the Home Secretary knows that three prisoners to a cell is not acceptable.
The Government have chosen that option possibly in the hope that the public will not notice it. Judges will sentence convicted persons as normal and everything will continue in the same way, but suddenly the Home Secretary will announce that the "class of '81" can be released six months earlier because there is not enough space for them. The fact that that provision is in the Bill is an admission by the Government that they know that, if present trends continue, there will be totally insufficient prison accommodation. It means that the Home Office has managed to persuade the Home Secretary that the position in our prisons is desperate.
We accept that there must be continual investigation to find ways in which people can spend less time in prison without damage to public security. The police have been mentioned this evening with doubtful relevance to the Bill. More policemen mean higher detection rates, which is what we wish. However, we must face the fact that a higher detection rate means more pressure on our prisons. I support the call for more police officers, because the rate of detection of middle-grade crime is very low. The detection rate for murder is 97 per cent. and the murder rate is going down. There are fewer rape cases, for example, but middle-grade crimes are increasing by leaps and bounds.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that the provision of more policemen, which as he says would improve the detection rate, would cause such pressure on the prisons that he could possibly question whether we should provide more policemen?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) will not respond to that, because we are now going wide of the matters that may be discussed on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Lyons: That is not what I was suggesting. We need more policemen to increase the detection rate.
Some provisions of the Bill are retrograde. The 28-day remand period in place of the present eight-day period will keep people in prison for longer and in practice will deprive accused persons of access to their lawyers for longer.
The partially suspended sentence is another retrograde step. It will increase the number of persons who are sent to prison. The previous Minister of State, now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was opposed to that provision. I have opposed that provision since it was introduced in 1977. It lay dormant on the statute book for four years and it is now being reintroduced to a chorus of condemnation.
The proposal for a curfew is not, happily, in the Bill. I hope that the Government will think again before introducing in the House of Lords, curfews for youngsters. A curfew will result in even more people going to prison. It will make people appear criminal unnecessarily. If a young person who is subject to a curfew order runs out of the house because of a family quarrel, or his father tells him to get out, and a policeman calls to see him when he is out he will be guilty of breaking the curfew. A youngster who is deaf might not hear the doorbell. He would be assumed to be out and later be hauled off to court for breaking the curfew. That is not a measure we need in this country.
This is a curate's egg of a Bill. The Government have not taken the opportunities open to them. There are both bad and good parts. There are also parts where it is impossible to know whether they will turn out to be good or bad.
However, I do not believe that we should oppose the Bill. The House did not divide on Second Reading. It is not good enough to wreck a Bill simply because it does not go far enough. The criterion is whether the Bill is an improvement on the existing legislation. The improvement may be only marginal, but, on balance, I believe that the Bill should be given a Third Reading.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I welcome the Bill. I served on the Standing Committee, and I believe that the Bill will be welcomed throughout the country.
There is no doubt that people are worried about law and order. That is evidenced in articles, in opinion polls and in everyday life. Crime and violence have drastically increased over the past decade.
I strongly supported the abolition of imprisonment for soliciting, for vagrancy and for begging. In this latter half of the century, with the number of people in our prisons and with society holding the views that it does, those are not the sort of crimes that worry people.
I make one point about soliciting. There is a big difference between the types of soliciting. If one is solicited by a female and there is a refusal, one is not pestered. However, it is right that the provisions affecting "kerb crawlers" and others should remain in the Bill. The problem has been encountered recently and has increased with the advent of greater car ownership.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) spoke at length about clauses 24 and 25. Clause 24 puts the onus for the payment of fines on parents. I may be old-fashioned, but I believe that many of the problems facing our society emanate from a lack of discipline in the home, which is often the result of a lack of parental interest. Making parents more responsible for the payment of fines may restore their sense of responsibility for the guidance of their children.
Criminals who commit acts of extreme violence have not reached that stage overnight. They have been through

a process that continues over many years. Had corrective action been taken in their formative years, many of the problems facing society might have been avoided.
It is right that a person on the receiving end of violence should have preferential treatment for compensation. That will put a responsibility on the individual committing the act, and will make him realise not only that it is wrong to commit acts of violence, but that he has a debt to pay to the person on the receiving end. The provisions in that regard will bring about a change of thinking among young people.
I was greatly concerned about clause 28 in its original form. It provided for up to three months' early release from prison and that only those who had committed murder would not be eligible for early release. I am glad that the period has been reduced to one month, but I was concerned that even those who had committed crimes of violence could be released early.
Therefore, I was delighted that, after I had moved an amendment in Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who has done an excellent job in steering the Bill through, introduced on Report a comprehensive schedule providing that those who had committed crimes of violence would not be eligible for early release. That is in accord with the views of the vast majority of the public. It would have been a retrograde step to allow the early release of those who had committed violent crimes.
I also welcome most other parts of the Bill. It was a pleasure and a privilege to serve on the Committee with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and I wish the Bill well in another place.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), who did so much about the omissions in the Bill when he introduced on Report new clauses for the return of capital punishment for certain offences. Together with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and one or two Opposition Members, I regret that his proposals did not find favour. I supported the new clauses and I pay tribute to the vigorous support and encouragement that my hon. Friend has given to the Bill.
Like my hon. Friend, I was privileged to sit on the Committee. It began, if slightly superficially, to tackle one of the greatest problems facing this country, which is rising crime, particularly among young people. If the Bill helps to lessen that rising tide and to bring home to young offenders the need to have a proper respect for society, it will have been well worth while.
It is very sad and regrettable that Parliament, in its customary way, should be considering a Criminal Justice Bill—necessary though it is—against a backcloth of rising crime, particularly among young people. It is particularly regrettable for those who represent urban areas and have knowledge of that crime day after day and week after week, together with increasing tides of vandalism. Such acts of crime and violence were unheard of not many years ago. Many of those acts are attributed to the type of society in which we live, with high rates of unemployment. If the Bill can make a small dent in the crime figures, our time will not have been wasted.
I add my tribute to those already given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) who has guided us through the Bill with great aplomb. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for


Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and to the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson)—who is not in the Chamber this evening—for their great co-operation. It has been a worthwhile Bill and one of which we should all be proud.
I am rather disturbed that some Opposition Members have given the impression that the Bill was designed to reduce the prison population. I do not think it befits this House, or those of us who purport to be legislators, to bring in any legislation or statutory instruments simply because the prisons happen to be severely overcrowded.
Bedford prison, which serves my county, is probably one of the most severely overcrowded prisons in Britain. Certainly the conditions in that establishment are disgraceful. Those who fall foul of the law and have to go to such an establishment obviously suffer a very real punishment, but, that having been said, I hope that this House will not pass legislation which will restrict the deterrent effect of imprisonment, or the effect of punishment, which is necessary for some of the heinous crimes being committed today, particularly by young people. I hope that legislation will not be passed simply on the ground that our prisons are overpopulated.
There have been siren voices on the Opposition Benches suggesting that we should pass virtually any measure which will reduce the prison population. Some of the provisions that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) would like to introduce would reduce the prison population but would at the same time reduce the protection available to our society. Obviously, overcrowded prisons and bad prison conditions should not be a feature of a decent society. They present great difficulties for those who have to administer the prisons. Those hon. Members who have visited such establishments will fully understand what I mean. But let it never be forgotten that the people in those establishments are there because they have committed crimes against society. They are there because society needs to be protected from such people. If life happens to be unpleasant for them, so be it. We must be as humane as possible but do not let us go overboard in reducing numbers for the sake of expediency. There are one or two omissions with which I will deal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member is not dealing with omissions. On Third Reading we deal with what is in the Bill.

Mr. Carlisle: I respect you and your judgment, Sir. I took my line from the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax who talked about the fact that no regulations had been introduced for drug offences. I thought that I might follow a similar line.
I will continue wth the clauses that are in the Bill. I support the new clause that was tabled in Committee to provide that tramps and vagrants should no longer be imprisoned. I support the initiative of those who brought that clause forward. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for giving it fair wind and including it in the Bill. It is right that those who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances—many of them not minutes from the House under the arches of Charing Cross railway station—should not have to suffer imprisonment because of their misfortune. Their misfortunes may have occurred for various reasons. In the majority of cases, and certainly in rural areas, they are those who do not commit offences and from whom society

needs no protection. It is absolutely ludicrous that certain persons should be put behind bars to punish them for the misfortunes that they endure. Many of us hope we shall never have to endure those misfortunes ourselves.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) is not here, because I welcome the clause that provides that prostitutes should no longer be imprisoned. It seems a nonsense that the poor unfortunates—one can describe them in no other way—should be punished for offences into which they are pushed. The unfortunate women were well described by the hon. Lady the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). They are often forced to turn to obtaining remuneration in a way which is against any form of decency. It is absolutely right that those people should seek and gain compassion from the legislators. I fully support that clause.
The main thrust of the Bill is that it makes parents more responsible for the sins and offences of their children. The Minister will know that since the White Paper on young offenders was introduced, many representations have been made to him that parents should bear a far greater responsibility for the sins of their children. For far too long schools, social workers, local councils, society itself and even the House have been blamed for the sins of the children. The clauses make the parents responsible for paying the fine. There is probably nothing that hurts more than when a man's pocket is hit. I know that the argument was put forward in Committee that several parents might find themselves in such impecunious circumstances that they would not be able to pay the fine and might possibly face a prison sentence because of their childrens' sins. However sad that is, if those parents find themselves in that position they must look to their lives and those of their children and at the way that those children behave.
The Bill has the support of the vast majority of the people. It gives effect to the proposition that parents must bear the responsibility for the sins of their children. For too long we have heard the voices of those who say that if the parents are in unfortunate circumstances, there is no way in which they can take that responsibility. We heard that said many times in Committee. I disagree totally, and I support new clauses 24 and 25 which put the onus back on parents.
Furthermore, I also support the idea of a curfew which was put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell). This is yet another deterrent and another weapon for magistrates to employ against children who offend against society. I appreciate that there are obvious problems of enforcement and that the machinery of that enforcement will be difficult. We do not envisage an army of snoopers either from the court or from the police knocking on doors every night to discover whether offending youths or girls are at home. To my mind, that machinery is irrelevant. The fact that children can be brought under the control of a curfew order should be enough to act as a deterrent. It may deter only one or two—it may be more—but it should be enough to deter them from going to places where they habitually go, and it will be yet another weapon that magistrates will have against them.
I hope sincerely that my hon. and learned Friend will prepare the machinery of government in another place so that under the supervision order arrangements this idea of a curfew will be adopted. If it proves successful it can be widened. It is a method which must be available to magistrates. There is no compulsion. The offenders


themselves are given a choice, and the parents are given a choice. That being so, I am rather perplexed by many of the voices raised in opposition to it.
I am sure that everyone wishes the Bill a very fair wind. I know that my constituents do. It may just touch on the greatest problem before us today—undoubtedly the greatest problem with which we may have to face the electorate. It is an attempt to make some progress in the fight against the rising crime rate. It will give some comfort to those who believe that government is about protection—in this case the protection of the individual from those who habitually offend against society, regrettably, these days, in an extremely violent way. We may have taken one small step towards correcting the sadly rising crime rate. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the way that he has conducted the Bill through all its stages so far, and I hope that it receives the full support of the House.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I found the speech of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) extremely interesting and extremely rich in content. We heard a whole catalogue of evils which had not been remedied, of opportunities which had been missed and of magic palliatives and potions which had not been applied. The question is, what did the hon. Lady do when she was in power between 1974 and 1979? What did her Government do to improve our penal system, other than produce one Green Paper? If she carries out her declared intention and leads any Opposition hon. Member who may come into the House during the vote into the Division Lobby against the Bill, it will be opposition for opposition's sake.
What are the main criticisms? What do people say about law and order? The answer that we hear repeatedly is that we are letting off too many villains too lightly and that they might almost be said to be getting away with murder. We also hear that not enough is being done to frighten people away from the consequences of their wrong-doing. The Bill is essential and important. It arms the courts with new and extended powers to deal with crime. Although I completely endorse the wonderful things that have been said about my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for both the wisdom and the panache with which he carries off the almost un-carry-offable, he should not go away in a fit of euphoria thinking that the Conservative Government have done all that needs to be done to remedy crime and lawlessness. Much remains to be done. I hope that in due course we shall do it.
There are three stages to the reduction of crime. First, one must catch the villain. We have made a substantial step towards that by increasing the number of police, by paying them more and by getting them on to the beat and out of their panda cars. I expect that we shall witness a rise in the detection rate. Having caught the villains, they must be convicted. We must do something about the criminal legal process which acquits too many people. Either they should never have been charged in the first place or they are guilty.
The Royal Commission which examined the matter has advanced some proposals. I accept some and reject others. We must urgently consider some of them and do something about it. Having caught and convicted villains, it is no good then to pat them on the head, give them

tuppence out of the poor box and then cast them loose onto society again. That is not what pleases the people who send us here. They believe that villains who are caught and properly convicted should be properly punished.
One of the important steps in the Bill which I strongly welcome is the reflection of public opinion which says that we are fed up with letting sentences be decided by social workers rather than the courts—encouraged by wet Socialist intellectuals from all over the place. I quite understand that there would be some impatience if we had never let them have a go at all. But we let them have a go in the 1960s and the mid-1970s when the Labour Government were in power. All those wonderful tender palliatives were tried. The result was that the crime rate has shot up to alarming proportions—so alarming that it is extremely difficult, even for a Conservative Government, to do anything about it.
An important part of the Bill is that we have restored to the courts the powers to impose proper sentences. We have abolished the six months or three years distinction which has long been a thorn in the flesh of the courts. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) in his criticisms of the residential care order. It cannot be realistic to suggest that we should have nowhere to put a young person who is living at a home where his parents do not give a damn and who is mixing every night with gangs and is going onto the streets at night and repeatedly committing crimes. It must be sensible to say that we will take such a young person away from that environment and give him a given quantity of supervision and care in a prescribed regime. Criticism such as that of the hon. Member for Ormskirk is misguided. It is sensible to have more determinate sentences and fewer indeterminate ones. The extension of the community service orders by lowering the age level is good, in view of the relatively low recidivism rate among juvenile offenders that measure has achieved.
I do not understand the Opposition's criticisms of detention centres. With what would they fill that gap for the persistent offender who is no longer a juvenile? If they could advance some choice other than taking such people into some form of guiding custody, I would understand. They even prejudge the results of the new regime. Why remove something if one does not know whether it can be replaced by something that is more beneficial and before one has the results of the existing scheme? If it is argued that only 24 per cent. do not re-offend, one must accept that that is 24 per cent. who would probably re-offend if one allowed the try-a-little-tenderness lobby to work its way through the 1980s as it worked through the 1960s.
All those measures are admirable in transferring the burden back to the courts and away from those who wish to engage in their rather more subtle but quite unsuccessful schemes of gentle treatment for almost everyone in almost any circumstances.
With regard to the partially suspended sentence, I am somewhat less of one mind with the Government. Incidentally, my hon. and learned Friend may be interested to know that somebody told me today that some courts had been operating these sentences for some time, apparently in the belief that the 1977 Act had already taken effect.

Mr. Edward Lyons: It has.

Mr. Lawrence: I thought that the purpose of this legislation was to give a more refined effect to something that had not yet been brought into operation.
My view of the value of the partially suspended sentence may well mean that I shall never be a judge. I believe that it meets a great need in our penal system. I am not talking about reducing the number of people in prison. That will never be acceptable to the public. If more offenders are caught and convicted and there is nowhere to send them, we shall have not just to replace the prisons that are falling down but actually to build more prisons. The partially suspended sentence must not be used as an excuse to solve the problem of overcrowding in prisons.
To me, the value of the partially suspended sentence is precisely the value that the Minister does not wish to see. Very often, what is wrong with the criminal fraternity is that offenders can commit goodness knows how many offences before they are caught. When they are caught and fight the case in court by pleading not guilty, there is a fifty-fifty chance of acquittal. When they are eventually convicted, nothing much happens on the first one or two offences. Therefore, by the time anyone sees the inside of a penal establishment he may have been offending for half his life and not only have an enormous criminal experience but have fallen into a regular pattern of criminality.
That is not just a lawyer's view. It is the view of many people in the prison service and of many people with knowledge of the workings of these matters. Surely, if we can manage it, we should show some people—perhaps the worst offenders, or perhaps not the worst—a glimpse of what life in prison will be like if they carry on down the slippery slope. That means showing them a glimpse of the inside of a prison far earlier in their history of offending. If it is only for a few weeks, rather than for months or years, that is all right by me, but let us show it to them.
Any prison officer will confirm that the effective result of imprisonment occurs in the first few weeks of the prison sentence. After that, prisoners become institutionalised cabbages, there is very little deterrent effect and the criminal education department gets to work on them. The early stage—the stage of shock—is the time at which to hit them, and we must consider doing that to more offenders at an earlier stage. The partially suspended sentence provides just such an opportunity.
I mention briefly a few other small but important points. The Bill abolishes imprisonment for vagrancy, showing once again that the Conservative Party has a human face. Moreover, any Opposition Member who laughs can laugh on the other side of his inhuman face, because in all their years in power the Labour Goverment did nothing to remove the inhuman blot of imprisonment for vagrancy when they had the opportunity to do so.
I do not agree with those of my hon. Friends who have supported the abolition of imprisonment for repeated prostitution. It does not seem sensible to remove a barrier to incessant criminality. To make it unnecessary for prostitutes ever to stop plying their wares in the street and to remove all deterrents—small fines are no deterrent to those who can earn £200 or £300 per week on the streets—does not seem remotely sensible. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) has presented the case so persuasively. I am only sorry that the situation does not remain as it was.
I shall not dwell on the subject of the lower threshold for parole. I repeat my belief that the parole system should be reinvestigated. During the debate, we heard about

parole and its problems. We heard about the way in which people felt an injustice when their parole was refused. We discussed whether it was necessary to give reasons. I am positive that it is not necessary. It would be highly undesirable to do so. The fact is that, if we did not have a parole system—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill and the Industry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Lawrence: As I was saying before I was so politely interrupted, if we did not have a parole system but instead had a points system whereby someone who was sent to prison could work his way out of prison by notching up a requisite number of good points for devotion to studies, trying hard and producing good work, we would be able to get rid of a large number of people in our prisons at the same time as instilling into them the work ethic.
It is regrettable that the House did not decide to restore capital punishment. Few other measures—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that subject should not be discussed during the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Lawrence: That subject was in an amendment, which was thoroughly discussed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that the Third Reading deals with what is in the Bill.

Mr. Lawrence: What is in the Bill is good. I wish that there had been more of it.
The Bill is a move towards a better sentencing arrangement for our courts. It improves the adequacy of sentences, but it is not the whole answer. It is up to the judges to make proper and full use, whether they are High Court judges, circuit judges or magistrates, of the powers that are available to sentence. It is necessary for the Government to consider for the future the construction of more prisons, if that should be necessary. If we catch and convict more villains, more prisons are inevitable.
I hope that the members of the Government will appreciate that this is not the end of the saga. There may have to be other Criminal Justice Bills so that we get our legal and penal system on to the level that is wanted by the people. They want a safe and peaceful Britain. They want to be able to go out on to the streets secure in the knowledge that they will not be attacked. Until we get our sentencing right, I am afraid that the level of crime will remain high. The people expect a Conservative Government to do something about it. We have done something. We must do more. I hope that my hon. Friends will bear that in mind for the future.

Mr. Mayhew: With the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words at the conclusion of this interesting debate. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have said kind things about me, much to my surprise. I came into the Chamber after an indigestible sandwich to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) saying something kind. Others have made such remarks, too. I am grateful for them.
I am sorry that the Opposition have failed to observe, or at any rate to avoid, the absurdity of voting against a


Bill on Third Reading that has been substantially amended in Committee in the direction that they wanted. They not only did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading; they welcomed it. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) has succeeded in communicating the decision to vote against the Bill to her troops. I doubt it, judging by the consistently empty Opposition Benches throughout the debate. That decision was frivolous and a mistake.
It has been disappointing that there has been a sustained drizzle of criticism from the Opposition Front Bench of the provisions of the Bill. Such criticism is the lot of anyone who tries to tackle a problem in politics. The previous Labour Government, of which the hon. Lady was a member in the Home Office, took great care not to run that risk. Although the Labour Government were in office for nearly five years, they did nothing about sentencing except to produce a Green Paper in December 1978. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has treated his Front Bench with such scorn. The hon. Member for Halifax would have been proud to introduce such a Bill, but the Labour Government did nothing in this connection.
We have heard much tonight about prison over-crowding. No Home Secretary has done more than my right hon. Friend to draw attention to the problem, and he has done a great deal about it. Not only did the Labour Government do nothing to change sentencing options, but they weakened the ability of the prison service to cope by year after year cutting thousands of new prison places from the building programme.
I cannot muster much patience when I listen to attacks on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for having consulted the judiciary and for refusing to distort our criminal justice system to secure relief in the prisons from what, in part, resulted from the Labour Government's neglect. Overcrowding will not reduce suddenly, but the best agents for reducing overcrowding are the discriminating sentencing policies of the judges and the partially suspended sentences which the Bill introduces.
Necessarily, the Bill is something of a miscellany, as are all criminal justice Bills. We have not even mentioned tonight several measures which, with the measures about which we have talked, will help to restore respect for the law. That remains the Government's objective, as it was when we sought election, and is the principal purpose of the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 62.

Division No. 164]
[10.6 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Ancram, Michael
Brinton, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Brotherton, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Budgen, Nick


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Beith, A. J.
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Chapman, Sydney


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, John
Cockeram, Eric


Body, Richard
Cope, John


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Costain, Sir Albert





Cranborne, Viscount
Murphy, Christopher


Crouch, David
Myles, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Neale, Gerrard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Needham, Richard


Dover, Denshore
Nelson, Anthony


Dunlop, John
Newton, Tony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Onslow, Cranley


Dykes, Hugh
Osborn, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Parris, Matthew


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Pattie, Geoffrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pitt, William Henry


Goodlad, Alastair
Pollock, Alexander


Greenway, Harry
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Grist, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey


Gummer, John Selwyn
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hamilton, Hon A.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hampson, DrKeith
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Haselhurst, Alan
Rossi, Hugh


Hawksley, Warren
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Heddle, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Henderson, Barry
Silvester, Fred


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sims, Roger


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Lang, Ian
Speller, Tony


Lawrence, Ivan
Spence, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Squire, Robin


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, John


Luce, Richard
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Stradling Thomas, J.


McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Thompson, Donald


Madel, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Major, John
Trippier, David


Marlow, Antony
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Viggers, Peter


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Waddington, David


Mates, Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Mather, Carol
Waller, Gary


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Watson, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wheeler, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mayhew, Patrick
Wickenden, Keith


Mellor, David
Wolfson, Mark


Meyer, Sir Anthony



Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. David Hunt.


Moate, Roger



NOES


Anderson, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashton, Joe
Hardy, Peter


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Homewood, William


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hoyle, Douglas


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
John, Brynmor


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leighton, Ronald


Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dalyell, Tam
McCartney, Hugh


Davidson, Arthur
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Davis, Terry (B 'ham, Stechf'd)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dormand, Jack
Maynard, Miss Joan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eadie, Alex
Morton, George


Eastham, Ken
Palmer, Arthur


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Parry, Robert


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pavitt, Laurie


George, Bruce
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Graham, Ted
Race, Reg






Richardson, Jo
Welsh, Michael


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Whitehead, Phillip


Sever, John
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Woolmer, Kenneth


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Spearing, Nigel



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Tilley, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

INDUSTRY BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Read the Third time and passed.

PROCEDURE (FINANCE)

Ordered,
That the Orders relating to the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance) made on 22nd January, 16th February and 12th May be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Orders of the Day — Musicians (Work Permits)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I wish to raise an issue that concerns an agent who works in my constituency and who is seeking to arrange a series of concerts next May and June by the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by the world-famous conductor Giulini. The series is planned as part of the celebrations of the 150th anniversary of the birth of Brahms.
This well-known American orchestra is corning to Europe with the intention of giving a series of cycles of the whole of Brahms' orchestral works in various centres. It appears that the orchestra will be heard giving its full cycle of Brahms concerts in Paris, Copenhagen, Florence, Milan and possibly another major European centre, but it will not be heard in London because of the Department of Employment's decision to accept the recommendation of the Visiting Orchestras Consultative Association, which has decided that the orchestra may not be permitted to give more than two concerts in central London. When it was brought to my attention, I was amazed to learn that such an organisation as VOCA existed—I had never heard of it before—and that it had the power to make recommendations that would decide virtually what Londoners, including my constituents in Kensington, might be entitled to hear in the way of first class musical performances. On hearing more about the manner in which this case had been handled, including the fact that the first application was made as long ago as May 1981 and that the final objection was not made known to the agent until February 1982, I felt that the whole operation of the system needed investigation. If the agent in question were to ask me to refer this case to the Ombudsman, from what I have seen of the way in which VOCA operates I would be willing to do so.
In the House tonight, I should like to raise some wider questions and not simply to dwell on the circumstances that have at the present time led to my right hon. and hon. Friends deciding that they are not prepared to review this question and to allow work permits for the orchestra to perform their cycle of concerts over one week. I should like the House to consider the whole business of the operation of this little-known quango, the Visiting Orchestras Consultative Association, and the policy of using the work permit system or, one might be tempted to say, abusing it, to restrict competition in the performance of music in central London.
I understand that VOCA was set up in 1952. It has a wide membership of bodies representing performers in London and outside. I understand, however, that few of those bodies are represented at its executive meetings. The meetings themselves are rare. There is no consumer representation that I can discern in the list of bodies that have been appointed to VOCA. Much of the proceedings are dominated by spokesmen for the Musicians Union and the Association of British Orchestras who take a rather restrictive view of the extent to which they want to welcome competitive performers into central London.
The constitution of VOCA has recently been changed. My hon. and learned Friend has been kind enough to supply me with its constitution as set up on 1 July 1974


and on 1 July 1981. There is a decided and obvious difference between the two texts. In the second, all reference to quotas appears to have been ruled out. The reason, I understand, is that the Office of Fair Trading has started to take an interest in the way in which this little quango works and in particular of a rule known as the two-concert rule, which appears to have been suppressed so far as reference in the constitution is concerned.
My hon. and learned Friend has admitted in a parliamentary answer that, although the quotas have been taken out of the formal constitution, the rule continues to be applied. This is the rule that has obstructed the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra from coming to London. In his letter of refusal, my hon. and learned Friend mentions that for the future he thinks that it would be sensible to consider whether there is some scope for easement of the two-concert rule. I am bound to say that I hope that he will follow that line of thought and do so sufficiently quickly to arrive at a reversal of his decision on the work permit for the Los Angeles orchestra.
I have taken a little time to consider the issues that lie behind the setting up of VOCA and its continuing existence. Obviously, we wish the London orchestras to flourish. That is why the House has approved substantial subsidies, amounting to about £25 million a year for music generally and about £3·5 million for the established orchestras.
The political question, which bears on the Government's policy, is whether they should leave it to the audiences to decide what they are prepared to pay and whom they wish to hear, or whether a gentleman in Whitehall should be allowed to show that he knows best about what audiences should hear, through the operation of the work permit system. It is an especially topical question, not just because of the Los Angeles Philharmonic but because in the past few weeks we have seen the opening of the Barbican concert hall, which has resulted in an increase of more than 20 per cent. in seats in the central London halls where first-class orchestras can perform.
At the same time as there has occurred the sharp rise in the number of seats, we see adverse influences affecting concert-going. I am sorry to say that those influences are likely to persist. One example is the decline in London Transport services in the late evening and a sharp rise in the cost of those services. People are suffering a general shortage of cash which prevents them from buying expensive tickets for evening entertainment. Before long, increasingly people will be tempted to stay at home in the evening in order to enjoy home video or satellite television, which will give them much more variety in home entertainment.
In deciding our subsidy and protection policies, we must ask whether we are trying to attract larger audiences into the concert halls, or whether we wish instead to protect London musicians by obstructing competition. The Conservative Party and the Opposition are divided on that sort of issue.
However, my hon. and learned Friend should bear in mind the Conservative Party's philosophy, as plainly stated, certainly by me and by himself and my right hon. Friend, I am sure, to the voters of central London. Do we believe sincerely in freedom of choice, personal discretion, competition and variety? If so, we should leave

it mainly to the box office to decide who is to be heard and who is to be discouraged from performing in central London. Or do we believe in management by bureaucrats, quangos and little-known bodies with powers that are not much advertised, leading to a sameness in the performances on offer, and a general restriction of choice?
One might be diposed to ask why we should interfere at all with the musical life of London. Is not the use of work permits to restrict artistic freedom an insult to London audiences? I do not go as far as that. The calling of a musician is an honourable one and performers deserve to be rewarded not only with our applause but with a reasonable income and some job security, as any other professionals. The musical life of London is part of the amenity of the capital, adding to the civilisation of those who live here and attracting tens of thousands of overseas visitors.
We must consider not only the interests of the performers but the facilities for music, especially the concert halls. My hon. and learned Friend, by his restrictive policy, is in acute danger of being sucked into a downward spiral of diminishing audiences, lower margins, tamer programmes, duller and less well-rehearsed performances, little-known soloists, and a further reduction in attendances. Before long, London's splendid reputation as an international centre for music could be lost. We could be said, fairly or unfairly, to have turned ourselves into a musical backwater, which there is no point in tourists visiting because they will hear only second-rate concerts by stale local performers. That is now often said about other music centres. I do not believe that it has yet been said about London, but it could begin to discourage visitors from coming to London to join us in the enjoyment of music in the capital.

Mr. Peter Snape: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make, and I think that the Minister will, too. However, the hon. Gentleman referred to stale music and stale performers in London. Is he aware that at any one time many London members of the British Musicians Union are themelves out of work? As regards the two-concert rule, is he also aware that that is common throughout the world, particularly in the United States where they are extremely keen to prevent musicians from this country from performing to the detriment of their own musicians?

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman has made a real point that I was about to deal with. There is a danger of retaliation. Indeed, it is already a threat. But Britain has an extremely favourable balance of payments if one considers the orchestras from this country that go abroad; and they receive big royalties from records that are sold abroad, largely on the splendid reputation that they have established. It is true that foreign orchestras come to this country, but if one adds up the numbers it is apparent that British orchestras have done extremely well as regards the facilities that have been offered in the United States.
In California, where the Los Angeles orchestra is among the best known and established, visits are planned for next year and during the Olympic Games, and so on. It would be disastrous for us to lose those visits because an angry spirit had grown up. That undesirable result is a real danger if my hon. Friend pursues his policy.
As to the two-concert rule, I understand from a parliamentary answer that the application on behalf of Los


Angeles is the only application that has been received by the Department since 1970. I do not believe that that is because everyone knows that it is hopeless to apply. The cost of travel, accommodation, insurance and other factors work against orchestras that want to come to London and expose themeslves to competition for too long. Unless they are subsidised—that is an important proviso—foreign orchestras will not often want to give more than two concerts in central London. Visits take a long time to arrange. If my hon. Friend changed his mind about Los Angeles orchestra it might be a couple of years before another orchestra could put into its schedule such a big event as a musical cycle in central London.
I shall list the possible compromises. Some are unsatisfactory and, in fact, are ridiculous. Last year the Chicago orchestra was allowed to come here and give three concerts. The explanation was that the orchestra went abroad during the middle of the fortnight during which the three concerts were given. That made it possible for the orchestra to slip through the two-concert rule. That is bureaucratic nonsense and does not solve the problem. The Department also suggested that the orchestra could give part of its cycles of performances in central London and then go to Wembley, Croydon, or some other musical centre in Britain for the remainder. That is also ridiculous if the intention is to give a single cycle of concerts that has an artistic unity.
There is also the suggestion made by myself and others that concerts with no particular artistic unity, which are not part of a series, or a celebration, or a single cycle, should be limited to two concerts in central London; but where they constitute a single event or an artistic unity they should normally be allowed. I say "normally" because I should not want to make an absolute rule that cycles should always be given with no restriction, because there may be a subsidy or promotional element that creates an artificial situation and unfair competition. There could also be something of a stunt. One does not want that.
The halls should also be allowed to operate a "clash" list to discourage performances of the same or similar works on the same days, or close together, to the disadvantage of performers, promoters and of audiences.
It has also been suggested that, provided that the agent can arrange an exchange visit to the home town of the orchestra that he proposes to introduce to the London audience, a visit here would be permissible. That would obviate retaliation to some extent, but I doubt whether it would often be practical and it would amount to a continuation of the two-concert rule. However, in the dispute with the LAPO, it might end some of the bitterness that is beginning to develop in the United States over the Department's attitude.
I fear that if VOCA is allowed to operate in its present form it could add to London's decline as a musical centre. Our soloists and orchestras would become less well known worldwide and receipts from record royalties would fall, as would other sources of income.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend to change his mind and not to refuse work permits for the LAPO next May and June, to give VOCA a thorough overhaul and perhaps invite the Office of Fair Trading to consider how it operates. He should also consider whether it should include representatives of consumers.
I also ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider the basis of policy for the protection, subsidy or other means of support for British concert halls and British musicians.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) for raising a matter which has recently attracted publicity and has caused considerable concern to him and to others.
The issue has been brought to the attention of the public by the Department's decision not to grant work permits to allow the LAPO and the celebrated conductor Giulini to perform five concerts at the Royal Festival Hall between 31 May and 5 June 1983.
I must make one or two matters plain. First, there is no question of Giulini or the orchestra being prevented from coming here, but, in circumstances that I shall outline, we have not found it possible to allow as many as five concerts by the orchestra in central London during the one tour.
We have to start by looking at the nature and purpose of the work permit system. The Immigration Act 1971 and the immigration rules made under it provide, in effect, that those who do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom may not work here unless they have permission. Whether people come here to work on a temporary basis or with the object of permanent settlement, they will be doing work that might have been carried out by our own people. The object of the work permit system is to protect the jobs of our own people.
I admit that the system is protectionist, discriminatory, anti-competitive and an obstacle to the free movement of labour. It is aimed at protecting people's jobs and is a fetter on the freedom of people in this country to choose who they want to work for them and who they want to contract to perform for them. It is all those things, but it is in the interests of British jobs. That is the object of the system.
Certain workers do not require work permits, because it is judged that their skills are badly needed in this country and that if they come here there is no risk of damage to the job opportunities of our own people, but, with that caveat, the work permit system applies generally.
I understand the views of those who say that music transcends national boundaries, but one cannot have music without players and those who play do so as a job and our players are as entitled to the protection of the work permit scheme as are lorry drivers or bank clerks.
Of course, different factors have to be taken into account in different areas. Sometimes, it may be in the long-term interests of jobs in this country if a person is allowed to come here to work. A person may have a special expertise that will help to create more jobs in a factory, and an outstanding foreign soloist will help not only to keep a British orchestra in work but to maintain artistic standards in this country and to keep London the musical capital of the world. I am glad that my hon. Friend admitted that that was still the case. That is good for jobs, and it is still jobs that we are talking about. I am standing at this Dispatch Box defending a system that is all about jobs.
I know precious little about professional footballers, but I have to deal with work permits for footballers. I take advice. How else could I do it? So the Department, on my behalf, consults the Football League, the Football Association and the Professional Footballers' Association.
Although the decision must ultimately be that of the Department, it would be ludicrous if I did not seek advice and take that advice into consideration, alongside the representations made by the intending employer, in coming to a conclusion.
Whose advice am I expected to seek in the case of orchestras? Overseas orchestras present those operating the work permit system with a special problem. The case for admitting the outstanding soloist is obvious. There will be more work for a British orchestra if an outstanding soloist comes here and he has to be accompanied by a British orchestra, but the case for admitting foreign orchestras is much less clear. If one broke down an orchestra into its component parts and thought of the third or fourth violins, one would not grant a work permit to a third or fourth violinist to come into Britain to play with a British orchestra. So our job is obviously difficult.
In dealing with work permits for the admission of a complete orchestra, there are very special problems. In London alone we have four major symphony orchestras. They are all dependent, to a very large extent, on the London box office—on the custom of the music lovers of London. There must be a limit to the amount of money that those music lovers are willing and able to pay. If a large slice of that money goes to buy tickets for concerts by foreign orchestras, it is surely a fair assumption that there will be less money spent on concerts given by British orchestras.
My hon. Friend says that we must leave it to audiences to decide, and not to the man in Whitehall. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, that is the opposite of the intention of the work permit system, because the work permit system is not there to allow the consumer in Britain to decide that he would prefer to have his cars made here by Japanese or by Taiwanese. The object of the work permit system is to protect the jobs of people in Britain.

Mr. David Crouch: It is appalling for the Minister to suggest that work permits should in any way determine the appreciation of great music. The idea that in its centenary year the Berlin Philharmonic could not come to Britain is distasteful to me and I could not accept it.

Mr. Waddington: It is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has to accept if we have a work permit system. If we have such a system, then in default of Parliament deciding that there should be exempted from that system special categories of employees, such as musicians, we in the Department of Employment have to carry out this invidious task and decide whether particular people should come to Britain. There is no escaping the dilemma.
I simply cannot, under the Immigration Act 1971 and the rules made thereunder, decide off my own bat that I shall not apply the work permit system to foreign orchestras. I have to apply it and in doing so I have to adopt the same criteria as have to be applied in the case of all others who want to come and work in Britain. Obviously, in applying those criteria I have to take a different sort of advice and different matters have to be taken into account.
I have to remind my hon. Friends of the law, and the law is as I have stated it. I have to take into account the consequences on British jobs of having a free-for-all. However desirable it might for the music lover to have free

entry for all foreign orchestras, I would not be performing my job correctly if I were to follow a policy which allowed such a free-for-all.
VOCA is talked about as if it were a secret society. In fact it is a representative body that was set up on the invitation of the Department of Employment in 1952 to provide advice on the specific problem of work permit applications for visiting orchestras. The executive committee, which conducts its day-to-day business, consists of representatives of the Arts Council, the British Council, the Musicians Union, the Association of British Orchestras, the Institute of Municipal Entertainment, and an agent who is also president of the British Association of Concert Agents.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: What about the concertgoer?

Mr. Waddington: If my hon. Friend is right to talk about concertgoers, I could say equally that it should be the consumer who should be entitled to elect that Taiwanese should be allowed to manufacture shirts in this country because they are prepared to work for half the price. That is not the purpose of the work permit system.

Mr. Snape: Can the Minister confirm that it is not just orchestras to which we refer, but also groups, steel bands and individual musicians, and that if there were no such system there would be little paid employment for many British musicians?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. It is difficult. We try to make sure that musical standards are not adversely affected. The most generous attitude is adopted to the stars of the musical profession. It becomes much more difficult in the case of the admission of orchestras.
There is no doubt that there is a limit on the amount of money that people are prepared to spend on concerts. The more that is spent on concerts staged by foreign orchestras the more danger there is to British orchestras that depend on the same box office. If I did not rely on the advice of VOCA I should have to rely on some other body. VOCA's view obviously must not take precedence over the Secretary of State's discretion. There may be certain circumstances when a Minister must take the view that the advice given by VOCA is wrong. If my hon. Friend says that VOCA is unrepresentative, he will have to advise me what body I should set up to advise the Department of Employment. I certainly cannot take the advice of the concertgoers of London. To do so would run contrary to the whole purpose of the work permit scheme.
The decision about the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra was taken only after the fullest consideration. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well how I agonised over it. I did not make a casual decision. I talked to him about it for a long time. The decision was mine and not that of VOCA. I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not find it possible to agree with me. That, I am afraid, happens to be that. I am perfectly prepared to look carefully at the whole scene again—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half and hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Private Business (Mr. Speaker's Ruling)

The following Private Ruling given by MR. SPEAKER is published in accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S statement of 5 November 1981.—[Official Report, c. 113.]

On 21 June 1950 Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown ruled that a Member speaking in debate in the House must not quote from the evidence given before a Committee on a Private Bill. He explained that he so ruled because of the general principle that a Committee document not formally laid before the House should not be quoted.

I am informed that on a number of occasions since that Ruling was given, Members speaking on Report or Third Reading of Private Bills have quoted from such evidence and that no exception has been taken by the Chair or by the House to their doing so. I have therefore re-examined the matter.

The general principle, that oral evidence or papers which are submitted to Select Committees should not be quoted in debate in the House until the Committee

concerned has reported them, is clearly necessary for the efficient functioning of Select Committees and the Chair will continue to uphold it. However, evidence given to Private Bill Committees is in a rather different category. It is not formally reported to the House, but is printed or duplicated by the promoters at their own expense, for their own and the Committee's and others' benefit. It can be bought by the public direct from the promoters as soon as it has been duplicated, and Members who are not members of the Committee can with notice obtain copies free of charge.

If Members were to quote from such evidence while a Committee still had a Bill under consideration, there might well be a danger of interfering with the proper working of the Committee. But no such difficulties arise once a Committee has reported a Bill. I have therefore decided that it would be right to take account of recent practice and to give a formal ruling that the Speaker will not intervene to prevent Members quoting the evidence given before, a Private Bill Committee once the Committee has reported the Bill to the House.